In his April 2026 General Conference address, “A Peculiar Treasure,” Alan R. Walker teaches that becoming the Lord’s covenant people is not something passive—it is a deliberate process shaped by obedience, sacrifice, and devotion to God.
But in a world that often values convenience and immediate results, disciples may wonder: Does faithful discipleship really require that much effort? [Read more…] about A Peculiar Treasure
Brian Stubbs presents a detailed linguistic argument proposing connections between the Uto-Aztecan language family and Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Egyptian. Drawing on decades of research, he highlights hundreds of potential correspondences, including shared roots, similar meanings, and consistent phonological patterns such as b → p, t → s, and shifts involving pharyngeal consonants.
Beyond vocabulary, Stubbs emphasizes structural parallels—plural suffixes, verb forms, and article prefixes—that suggest deeper relationships than simple borrowing. He argues that these patterns may align with the Book of Mormon narrative, particularly the interaction of Nephite and Mulekite populations and their languages.
Stubbs acknowledges that his work has not yet been formally published or accepted by the linguistic community. However, he reports strong informal reactions from both LDS and non-LDS scholars. He concludes that the absence of accepted linguistic evidence does not necessarily mean such evidence does not exist, especially given the slow and complex nature of historical linguistics.
Brian Stubbs argues that there are meaningful linguistic parallels between Uto-Aztecan languages and ancient Hebrew and Egyptian. These include consistent sound changes, similar word meanings, and shared grammatical structures like plural endings and verb forms.
While this research is still developing and has not yet been formally accepted by the broader linguistic community, Stubbs presents it as evidence that language relationships described in the Book of Mormon may be more plausible than often assumed.
The original slides from Brian Stubbs’ presentation were not available. The visuals included here were created using AI to help illustrate the concepts discussed. Every effort has been made to accurately reflect the speaker’s intent; however, any errors or oversimplifications are our own.
You’re all aware that in First Nephi—I believe it’s the second verse of the whole Book of Mormon—Nephi says that:
…I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
And of course, they left Jerusalem where Hebrew was spoken. It’s been a matter of discussion and debate among LDS scholars whether they:
But that debate has never really been resolved. In fact, I’ve discussed it with a few of the LDS scholars at BYU and mentioned to them that the real way to solve that debate is to look at American Indian languages.
Now, let’s give you a little background.
We don’t have time to make you linguists, and we don’t have time to teach you Hebrew and Egyptian. But we’re going to try to give you an overview of some of the basics.
The Book of Mormon is an account of:
And of course, they came out of Jerusalem, presumably speaking Hebrew or something of the Northwest Semitic dialect, and came to the Americas. Their population increased in the Americas.
Looking at American Indian languages, there are approximately 2,000 American Indian languages. Or there were, I should say. (There are) about a thousand now. About half of them have become extinct in the last few centuries.
The critics of the Book of Mormon say that no one has shown evidence of any American Indian language being descended from Hebrew or Egyptian, thus discounting the Book of Mormon. Or, no one has shown it to the satisfaction of the linguistic community.
Now, a linguist is a language scientist. They are the final word on whether two languages are related or not. 
I am a linguist. I’ve been researching in a particular language family for the past 30 years, and we’re going to focus on that language family.
In fact, let’s talk about language families before we go any further.
A language family starts out some ancient time. They call this a proto-language—the original language, the old language. And from this are descended other languages.
And interestingly, each of these languages, given time, will also separate. People move and go different places, and the language changes with time.
In fact, all living languages are always changing. So is English. Every living language changes. And from those, these become separate branches and other languages develop.
You get the picture. 
Anyway, in the Americas there are about 2,000 languages. And these languages are organized into about 157 different language families.
That means that there are 157 different groups of related languages, each group coming from its proto form. But these different groups are not necessarily related to each other.
Some proposals have proposed that, ‘hey, this group (or this group of groups) are related in a larger picture’. And some of those will inevitably be shown to be the case. But as of now, there are about 157 language families. That’s quite a few.
If we look at the time depth of Lehi—Lehi came to the Americas about 2,600 years ago. Only 2,600 years ago! If we look at other language families with a time depth of 2,600 years, for example:
So when you look at the similarities of languages descended from Latin, they’re very similar. There’s no problem seeing the relationship. Same thing with Germanic.
We should see something like that in the Americas—and yet it is problematic to see that.
First of all, if Lehi was the only one in the Americas, then there should only be one language family instead of 157. So we know that many other groups have come to the Americas besides Lehi.
In fact, of these 157 language families, two of them are convincingly demonstrated to be from across the Bering Strait. Probably others were as well. But the language evidence suggests that at least two of these came from across the Bering Strait. A third one has some evidence for it.
The many sources of these language families would include Bering Strait people who entered the Americas.
You have Lehites or Lamanites and a few Nephites. You have the Mulekites.
Now remember, the Mulekites and Nephites mixed in the Book of Mormon about 200 BC or so—that’s just a guess. And that group of Mulekites might only be one of many.
I mean, the group of Mulekites that the Nephites mixed with would only be one of each of the branches.
In other words, you’d have many other Mulekite descendants, probably, and this one group mixed with the Nephites.
You’d also have other groups of Lehites, and only this one group mixed with the Mulekites.
You also probably have leftover Jaredites.
My guess is that the Jaredites might be as prominent in the Americas as any, mainly because of 157 different language families.
And of course, the Jaredites date from about the Tower of Babel, which is basically the history of the earth. Since Noah, anyway.
There are probably many other sources besides those. And what happens is, when language groups get in contact with each other, the languages mix.
Many languages are mixtures of various languages. For example, English is very much a mixture. It comes from Old English originally, so it’s called a Germanic language.
However, at various points in time, English has borrowed a lot from Latin. And the two or three centuries after 1066, when the Norman French speakers conquered the British Isles and ruled for a couple of centuries, much French was borrowed into English.
So much French and so much Latin, and other times, that in an unabridged English dictionary, the Germanic part of our vocabulary is actually quite small compared to the Latin dimension of our vocabulary.
But we still call it a Germanic language.
Now, this kind of thing has probably been happening in the Americas.
have been mixing.
And so it’s a very sticky mess.
Nevertheless, there’s one language family that we’d like to focus on, and that is the Uto-Aztecan language family.
The Uto-Aztecan language family is a group of about 30 American Indian languages that linguists recognize as being one language family descended from a single proto-language called Proto-Uto-Aztecan. 
There are about eight branches of it. In other words, it was divided into about eight different groups. And then those groups had the other descended languages.
This language family exists in the southwest United States and in northwest Mexico.
The name “Uto-Aztecan” comes from:
The Hopi, for example, are a Uto-Aztecan language.
Pima and Papago (Tohono O’odham) in Arizona, the various Ute groups—there are about a dozen languages in southern California where the northern branch split and spread from.
There are about 15 languages in northwest Mexico: the Tarahumara (the great distance runners), and Cora and Huichol and Yaqui, and many of the Tepiman languages.
Anyway, we don’t have time to really go into a lot of detail about that. But the Uto-Aztecan language family is an American Indian language family that is one of the larger ones.
I mean, 30 languages is quite a few.
This is some research I’ve been working on for a number of years. It has not yet been published, but it will be. Give me another two or three years maybe.
However, I have shared it with a prominent Semiticist and a Uto-Aztecanist, and I’m a Uto-Aztecanist myself.
So I’ve shared it with my peers, and those whom I’ve shared it with privately are quite overwhelmed at the number of similarities and the closeness of them.
For example—let’s see, let’s enlarge that a little bit. There we go. I know linguistics, but I’m technologically challenged.
Here we have the Hebrew on the left. Three different words or morphemes—which is a unit of a word—with meaning.
The plural suffix in Hebrew is -im. It’s put on the end of words, just like in English we have -s:
In fact, this plural is in a number of words that you’re familiar with.
Anyway, the plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan is reconstructed to be -ima.
Now, some Uto-Aztecanists will argue with that. Nevertheless, there is good evidence for that.
They would argue about the vowel in front.
By the way, I need to tell you that we’re going to pronounce the vowels like you do in Spanish or most languages of the world. If you know Spanish or any other language besides English, it’s probably close to that. English changed them all.
Anyway, the plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan is -ima.
And I talked with Wick Miller, the foremost Uto-Aztecanist, before his passing, and explained all the evidence suggesting that.
He agreed that that’s a decent reconstruction for that plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan.
There’s also a passive prefix in Hebrew ni- that’s put on the beginning of verbs to make a verb passive. You know, “I ate the apple.” “The apple was eaten.”
(By the way, that is also reciprocal and reflexive. That just means “we did it to each other”—like “I fought him,” or “he was fought,” or “we fought each other.” Those are reciprocal and passive meanings that do overlap a lot in all languages.)
In Uto-Aztecan there is a prefix na-, which also makes verbs reciprocal and passive.
There’s also a verb—it’s yāšab in later Hebrew, but originally it was yāšab with a b, and it means “to sit down.” It also means “to dwell or reside at a place.”
Well, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a verb yasipa, which also means “to sit down” and “to reside at a certain place.”
Now, those are somewhat close.
However, when we consider the fact that the Hebrew plural suffix -im came from an older form. Ima is the original form. Linguists and Semiticists can figure out, looking at related languages, that the older original form was -ima.
Then we see that the plural suffix of the Near East—in Northwest Semitic—is identical to the Uto-Aztecan plural suffix.
Also, the Hebrew ni- came from an earlier na-—Semiticists know that and agree on that—identical to the Uto-Aztecan passive, reciprocal, and reflexive prefix.
Also, the Hebrew word yāšab changed its vowel at a certain time in the history of Hebrew, and it was originally yāšiba.
And the vowel pattern of the Uto-Aztecan verb is identical: yasipa, just a change from b to p.
Very interesting similarities. Now, these are only three similarities.
There are about a thousand such similarities between the Uto-Aztecan language family and Hebrew and Egyptian.
Now, trying to decide how many similarities—we have lots of them here. Let’s get into it a little bit further.
There are three basic sound changes.
Now I need to explain here that linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns. So that this language changes this sound this way, and another language changes it another way—quite consistently within itself.
So that later this sound corresponds to another sound in the other related language. 
For example, Hebrew b in dagesh positions (which means at the beginning of a word or in certain positions) changed to kw in Uto-Aztecan.
The emphatic or pharyngeal ṣ changed to s.
That “c” with a little hook under it we’re going to use to represent the ts sound. In fact, that’s how it’s pronounced now in modern Israel.
The r changed to y or i, another very common change in world languages.
Keeping those three sound changes in mind, look at these similarities between Hebrew words and Uto-Aztecan words.
For example, the Hebrew verb ‘to boil’ or ‘ripen’ is bašal. The corresponding word is kwasa.
It’s missing the final l, but the b corresponds to kw, and the š corresponds to s.
The Hebrew word for ‘flesh’ or ‘meat’ is bāśar (and other meanings). In Uto-Aztecan it’s kwasi.
Again, you see the b change to kw, the š corresponds to s, and the r goes to an i or y sound. (In fact, in some of the languages, the Y actually shows up.)
The verb for babba in Arabic but ṣabba in Hebrew—means ‘to latch onto something, to grab’ —like a lizard.
Notice the double b. That would cause a kw in Uto-Aztecan.
And interestingly, this corresponds perfectly. In Uto-Aztecan, takwa means ‘to close or lock’, like it does in Arabic and Hebrew and other semitic languages. It also means ‘to catch or grasp’, like it does in Arabic.
And one of the nouns coming from that verb is a word for lizard.
Sabb—or in Arabic, ḍabb—means lizard.
And in Uto-Aztecan, takwa also means lizard.
So here you have an identical form that has all three meanings:
They match phonologically—all the sounds match. They also have those same three meanings in Uto Aztecan. 
In fact, here are a couple of more examples. Shāb is a past tense. Shābad is the imperfect form of the conjugation. Don’t worry if you don’t understand all the words I’m using—we don’t have time to explain it—but you can get the picture here.
Anyway, šab saqqu—you see the s lining up, the double b to the qua, and the r to the y. Same thing with ṭaq.
Here are a few others. Mayim is the Hebrew word for water. Mim, mi, mima is the word for ocean in a number of Uto-Aztecan languages. The word for shoulder is similar.
I’m just going to go real fast here.
The word for shoulder—shekem or shikmo—shikmo if it’s got a suffix. Sikum—actually with an m sometimes. The capital N just means any kind of nasal. It changes according to the letter following it.
Singab—word for squirrel. If this word existed in Hebrew, it would match Arabic in a form of shigb. We don’t have that word for squirrel in ancient Hebrew because there is no need to talk about squirrels in the Old Testament.
But the sound correspondence is among Semitic languages themselves.
By the way, Semitic—I might need to explain that term—is the language family to which Hebrew, Arabic, Babylonian, Ethiopic and Semitic languages belong. Arabic is closely related to Hebrew. Oh, and Aramaic—that will be important in our discussion. 
Anyway, šigb would be the word in Hebrew; kʷul with a silent consonant at the end is the word in Uto-Aztecan.
G changed to C—that devoicing of G and D to C and T—and B to P in other positions is also established with several examples.
Another verb—Aramaic—and by the way, yes, these are examples of r changing to y or i.
By the way, those are basically the same letter. You don’t think of i and y being the same letter.
But say the vowel i between two a’s, for example aya, and if you make the vowel long, it’s ē. But if you make it short, i, then the i becomes a y.
They’re both pronounced in exactly the same place in the mouth. So whether you see an i or a y, they’re basically the same.
Anyway, shaq, the word for comb the hair—which I don’t have too much of anymore—and in Uto-Aztecan, suk. You see the y corresponding to the y, and everything else matches fairly well.
Kara—to go in circles or to do dances. In Southern Paiute, kia—to have a round dance.
mar, to go or flow or pass by in Semitic languages generally; in Uto-Aztecan, mia.
barr in Arabic, meaning field or land as opposed to water; kwa in Uto-Aztecan.
And there’s actually one language that has the ru, so they have three examples in a row of an r between vowels going to y in Uto-Aztecan.
There are several others, but we don’t have time for everything. Let’s skip those.
Oh, here are some interesting ones. Let’s take a look at these. I’m watching my clock here.
So what we’re going to do is give a lot of examples—just look at them—and there are many very interesting ones. Then we’ll talk about what it all means.
One of the words for man in Hebrew is ʾādām. In Uto-Aztecan we have ʔitam.
Another word from that same root, ʾāḏōm, means red—and in fact the verb ʾāḏam means ‘to be red’.
In Arabic you’ve got ʾaduma, ʾadimal, and so forth. And in Uto-Aztecan, ʔitam is the word for brown. Red and brown are often associated. 
Now, the pharyngeal Hebrew ḥ is reflected by o or u. The pharyngeal ḥ is different than our English h—it’s pronounced very gutturally in the pharynx.
For example, instead of “aha” with a regular h, it’s a very guttural sound.
And that gutturalness makes its tonality very similar to round vowels. In fact, it’s always associated with round vowels like o and u.
So here we have—usually u is what it corresponds to in Uto-Aztecan. For example, ḥēṣ is the Hebrew word for arrow; in Uto-Aztecan it’s uṣ.
You’ve got that pharyngeal ḥ causing the vowel.
ḥāmar means to smear something—again you see the pharyngeal ḥ going to u, and the r going to y. ḥarak, same thing.
ḥālal, the verb to play the flute; in Uto-Aztecan, kulul. It’s missing the initial ḥ, but it’s got the round vowels and the two l’s. It’s very similar.
Aḥa—to cough—and ohoho, and so forth.
To cry—with that guttural ḥ—you’ve got the š corresponding to s, the r to y, and the w or u, which is also like a round vowel, corresponding to ḥ.
In fact, w’s and u’s are like i and y. If you say awa, you make a u sound between two a’s, and say it faster and faster, then it becomes w.
So w’s and o’s and u’s are very similar. 
The pharyngeal ʿayin is also a pharyngeal. But it’s voiced pharyngeal instead of voiceless. It’s a sound unique to Semitic languages, not in European languages.
In fact, in Saudi Arabia, you have two ʿayin’s. Saʿu-di—Aʿra-bia. There’s an ʿayin between Saudi and Arabia. There are consonants between those.
Anyway, the pharyngeal also goes to w or o or u. That pharyngeal behaves very much like the other pharyngeal.
And here are some examples. For example, the verb ṣāʿaq is the word to cry—or “to cry out”—in Hebrew; in Uto-Aztecan, soach. You’ve got that “ooa” that shows the presence of a pharyngeal.
Šaʿa—ʿāhab, to delight in or love. In Uto-Aztecan, shoa.
Oh, this is a great one. In Arabic, there is a verb to grow old—specifically used for women. It’s not used for men or any other kind of creature. It means for a woman to grow old. Its consonants are ʿ, ġ, and z—ġ-z-y. ġaẓiya.
In Tarahumara, one of our Uto-Aztecan languages—identical. And it specifically means to grow old (only women): wakaza. For some reason, there’s not such a verb for men. There’s a little bit of chauvinism in ancient languages.
Anyway, you see the ‘ayin, corresponding to the W. ġaẓiya and wakaza, word for older woman.
Shelar—hair. Šaʿar in Arabic; in Uto-Aztecan, wiša.
You see the š corresponding, the pharyngeal ‘ayin to w, and the r to e.
Word for boy: naʿar; in Uto-Aztecan niya.
Again, the pharyngeal ayin with the w/y, and the r going to e.
Enough of that one. Let’s look at a few more here.
The word for forest: yaʿar. yui
To swallow: bālaʿ; in Uto-Aztecan kʷu. Again, b corresponding to kw, l to l, and ʿ to u.
The word for ‘leech’ in Hebrew and Arabic—ʿalūq. In Uto-Aztecan, wak.
The Semitic ʾaleph (glottal stop) also acts like a pharyngeal. The glottal stop is like an “uh uh” catch in the throat—ʔ.
It often went to w. In fact, it does in Arabic; glottal stops sometimes go to w.
The word for lion in Hebrew—ʾaryēh; in Uto-Aztecan, warya.
The word for “believe”: yaʾamin, ʾāman—“he believes” in Hebrew. Yahwamin means “to believe” in Uto-Aztecan. Ya amino, amino—“he believes him” or “believes it”—is another Hebrew word from that verb.
Gabrielino: -o—I know it’s missing the m, but it’s actually got the -o meaning “him” or “it” as an object.
The probability of those seven segments aligning perfectly like that—I figured out manually once—it’s one in several thousand anyway, the probability of it aligning by chance.
There are a lot of other interesting words—we don’t have time to go over all of them. Let’s run to the Egyptian.
Oh yes, and what’s interesting is in Uto-Aztecan, we not only find about 600–700 similarities between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, we also find about 300 similarities between Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan. 
This first one was not found by me. It was found by Cyrus Gordon, an internationally renowned Semiticist, who happened to notice that the Aztec word—Classical Nahuatl—for crocodile, cipactli, which comes from Uto-Aztecan supak, was very similar to the Egyptian word for crocodile, Sobek.
Oh yes—and the old perfective in Egyptian has verbs ending in -e if it was past tense or passive/stative kinds of things. Interestingly, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a mechanism that has verbs ending in -a being active or transitive, and verbs ending in -e being passive, intransitive, and stative—exactly like it is in Egyptian.
The passive -w or -ew in Egyptian—exact same thing in Uto-Aztecan. In fact, there are four ways in Egyptian to make a verb stative or passive, and one in Arabic—and Uto-Aztecan has all five of them quite prominently.
This goes into pronouns—we don’t have time for pronouns. Let’s take a look at some Egyptian words.
By the way, in Egyptian we only have the consonants. We know a little bit about the vowels from Coptic, even though they’re debatable sometimes. We have a few vowels figured out by transliterations into other languages, but a lot of it is still quite unknown.
So the Egyptian consonants for a verb meaning “to pierce” are t-k-s. In Uto-Aztecan, tikselo is the verb meaning to pierce or poke.
k-m is the verb meaning black, brown—any dark color. In Coptic, kēme; in Uto-Aztecan, koma, meaning dark gray, brown, black.
n-m-y is the word for traveling or crossing something. In Uto-Aztecan, nami means traveling, walking around, crossing an area or a river.
Wnš—or wunish, whatever the vowels were—in Coptic, onch; in Uto-Aztecan, once, onceo, and onceu, the word for “fox.”
Let’s just pick out a few of each page. Like I say, there are about a thousand of these—we’re going to show you about a hundred or 150. If you want all of them, they’re in a book in the back. By the title of this, if you want the whole story and you’re interested in this kind of thing, you’ve got all the details in 110 pages back there. We’re just getting the tip of the iceberg here.
For example, šim in Egyptian, the word for “go” or “walk”; sema in Uto-Aztecan.
Another: sbk (Egyptian), calf of the leg or lower leg; in Uto-Aztecan sepika—same three consonants. Calf of the leg, lower leg.
Oh, by the way, Coptic is a later form of Egyptian that did put vowels into it. It existed about the time of Christ.
s-b-t in Coptic; sapi in Uto-Aztecan, meaning fence or enclosure.
k-b in Egyptian, meaning cool, calm, quiet; kopa in Uto-Aztecan, quiet and calm.
This first one was not found by me. It was found by Cyrus Gordon, an internationally renowned Semiticist, who happened to notice that the Aztec word—Classical Nahuatl—for crocodile, cipactli, which comes from Uto-Aztecan supak, was very similar to the Egyptian word for crocodile, Sobek.
Oh yes—and the old perfective in Egyptian has verbs ending in -e if it was past tense or passive/stative kinds of things. Interestingly, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a mechanism that has verbs ending in -a being active or transitive, and verbs ending in -e being passive, intransitive, and stative—exactly like it is in Egyptian.
The passive -w or -ew in Egyptian—exact same thing in Uto-Aztecan. In fact, there are four ways in Egyptian to make a verb stative or passive, and one in Arabic—and Uto-Aztecan has all five of them quite prominently.
This goes into pronouns—we don’t have time for pronouns. Let’s take a look at some Egyptian words.
By the way, in Egyptian we only have the consonants. We know a little bit about the vowels from Coptic, even though they’re debatable sometimes. We have a few vowels figured out by transliterations into other languages, but a lot of it is still quite unknown.
So the Egyptian consonants for a verb meaning “to pierce” are t-k-s. In Uto-Aztecan, tikselo is the verb meaning to pierce or poke.
k-m is the verb meaning black, brown—any dark color. In Coptic, kēme; in Uto-Aztecan, koma, meaning dark gray, brown, black.
n-m-y is the word for traveling or crossing something. In Uto-Aztecan, nami means traveling, walking around, crossing an area or a river.
Wnš—or wunish, whatever the vowels were—in Coptic, onch; in Uto-Aztecan, once, onceo, and onceu, the word for “fox.”
Now, Egyptian has article prefixes. For a feminine noun, wꜣ means “a bee.” tꜣ means “the,” so you’d put that on the front, meaning “the bee.” And nꜣ is the plural “the” in Egyptian, meaning “the bees.” So you have wꜣ, tꜣ, and nꜣ as prefixes to the word.
And here we have in Uto-Aztecan: the Tarahumara language has three different variants for this word “bumblebee”: napara, tapara, and wapara.
The -para part is simply a vowel change. Since the last vowel is a, it tends to change the vowels in front of it to a. That happens often in English and other languages. So para becomes para. Intervocalic t becomes r often.
So para is the word for bee, and it has those same three prefixes for a feminine noun. In Egyptian, bit is a feminine noun. Boy, you can’t get a much better match than that. 
A few more: Egyptian bꜣk (hawk); in Uto-Aztecan, pak.
Now we have to show you these. The word for lion in Egyptian—mꜣꜥy (consonants m-ʔ-y). Remember, the glottal stop goes to w, and i is the same as y. In Coptic, it’s moui. In Uto-Aztecan, mawya—all three consonants showing perfectly.
tjt—a shroud or garment—in Egyptian; in Uto-Aztecan, tutui—all three consonants matching.
tꜣ is the Egyptian word for earth; in Uto-Aztecan, ti, meaning dirt, dust, sand.
Sot—the word for son.
The word for old man, or “to be old,” in Egyptian—that’s an i, glottal stop, w—iwꜣ; in Uto-Aztecan, yowa—again, the glottal stop showing with rounding and the w.
This is wonderful: sbꜣ. In Coptic, it’s sba. But Coptic has already lost the glottal stop of Egyptian—it only has the s originally from the Egyptian. Whereas Uto-Aztecan has all three consonants still showing. But the glottal stop jumped from the third consonant to the second. So seepo is the word for star in Uto-Aztecan.
And by the way, this is a consistent pattern—the glottal stop jumping ahead for certain words or kinds of vocalizations.
We’re not going to have time to show you all this. I’ve got to show you one other page, and then we’ll come to some conclusions.
Anyway, after I found all of these Egyptian words, the sound correspondences of Egyptian were a little bit different than what I had found for Hebrew.
The t goes to s, and the b to p, and so forth. Then I started noticing lots of words in Uto-Aztecan as well where the Hebrew b corresponded to p.
Here’s a good list of them. The p-dialect of Hebrew, for example—the word in Hebrew for lightning is baraq; in Uto-Aztecan, peraq. The word for house, bēt; in Uto-Aztecan, pet.
The word also as a verb—“to spend the night”—in Uto-Aztecan means house, and pet as a verb also means to spend the night. Betach, petirach—that’s that pharyngeal ḥ behavior, and so forth.
Another example: bōʾ means “coming,” or also “the way,” in Hebrew; po, identical in Uto-Aztecan for road or path.
This is a good one: bāṣaʿ, to look or see; bassar, to open the eyes. In Arabic, baṣar for eye—the Hebrew voweling would be bosi, which matches Uto-Aztecan pusi. This is a bit strange, but it matches. We don’t have that word in Hebrew per se.
The word for daughter, bat; in Uto-Aztecan, pate.
And so forth. Several hundred other words showed me that there is also a p-dialect of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan. And it wasn’t until I found all three of these that it dawned on me—I’m a little slow and dense at times—that here we have one dialect of Hebrew, or Hebrew/Aramaic (it actually has a lot of Aramaic leaning).
This p-dialect of Northwest Semitic—shall we call it—Aramaic and Hebrew are both part of the Northwest Semitic branch of Semitic. Anyway, we have a p-dialect of Hebrew, and we have it matching Egyptian, and then we have a kw-dialect of Hebrew. 
And then it comes to mind, of course, the union of the Mulekites with the Nephites—Nephites who are dealing with both Egyptian and Hebrew uniting with the Mulekites. And it would appear, at first glance—in fact, there’s a whole bunch of other evidence that I don’t have time to show you—but this actually is a descendant of the language of Zarahemla, because you have all of them.
Now, of course, I’ve run this privately past a few Uto-Aztecan PhDs in linguistics that I work with—they’re non-LDS—and shown these similarities, and their jaws drop. They are really quite overwhelmed with the number and quality of the similarities. But it has not been published, so give me a little more time. I need to figure a few more things out and put some other things together first.
But from both LDS specialists, Semitic specialists and non-LDS Semitic specialists, and non-Uto-Aztecanists, it seems to be a very strong case.
And you know, this is only one of the 150 language families in the Americas. There are a lot of interesting things in other language families. So it’s all yet to be worked out, and it will all come out in the wash. 
So when the critics say there is no language evidence for the Book of Mormon that has been accepted by the linguistic community, they are correct. There’s nothing yet that has been accepted by the linguistic community—but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
The progress of Native American language study generally is slow. It takes about three to five lifetimes to really get a language family figured out.
Anyway—hey, let’s take a few questions.
This asks about other language families besides Uto-Aztecan. There are people who have claimed, for example, Swadesh claimed something for the Zapotecan languages. There’s a handful of similarities with Hebrew—not enough that anybody’s really paid attention to them.
Another person has put together some similarities with Quechua in the south, and about half of those are really good and could be worked up according to linguistic methodology, but that has not been done yet. Half of them are spurious and do not work so well.
Others have claimed things for Plains Indians, Iriquoi and so forth. I’ve looked at those languages myself. In fact, the reason I focused on Uto-Aztecan is because I looked at a few dozen language families before focusing on this one. There are some interesting things in other language families, but none of them have been put together, written up, and presented convincingly to the linguistic community—not even close. And so that has not been done yet.
(You’re assuming I can read small print!) This talks about the Uto-Aztecans not arriving in Mesoamerica until after 900 AD. Yes, Aztecan came quite late to where it is now. They claimed to have come from the northwest of there, which is interestingly where all the other Uto-Aztecan languages are.
Not only that, but I think that with time I might figure out where they come from exactly by language comparisons and areas.
But that doesn’t mean they didn’t come from the south, go north, and then return southward—perhaps survivors of the destruction of the Nephites—while others were northward. The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans is somewhere in northwest Mexico or the southwest U.S.
This talks about the Olmec. Yes, the Olmec are the archaeological entity in the Gulf of Mexico that might be Jaredite-related, and that the Michoacán language family is associated with the Olmec tradition. That’s probably true—I don’t doubt it at all.
And this is basically asking about Jaredite languages. Yes, I am very interested in that matter. I think a lot of American Indian languages are more Jaredite-descended than Lehite—but that’s about three more lifetimes of research.
If anybody wants to become a linguist and dive into that, they’re welcome. My life’s two-thirds over, and I’m going to focus on as many language families as I can with the Lehi problem.
Answer: Some of them do. Some are simply spoken languages that linguists record. Others have modern written forms—they borrowed the Roman alphabet, just like we English speakers did. 
The Romans borrowed the Greek alphabet to write Latin. The Greeks borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, and the Hebrews and Phoenicians got many of their symbols from Egyptian. So English is “reformed Egyptian,” too.
Here’s a very good question, and I meant to touch upon it:
Answer: Yes, I have found a few, but not many. That’s my focus for the next few years—to learn Egyptian better and find some grammatical similarities.
With more research, I think we can identify time and place of Egyptian influence and so forth. That will be interesting and mostly still needs to be done.
Answer: Yes, I’ve looked at Mesoamerican languages. There are a couple of language families I want to look into—Oto-Manguean is interesting, and Hokan is interesting—but I haven’t had time yet.
Answer: Well, Aztec is not a dead language. There are still about a million speakers of Aztecs in Mexico—different dialects descended from Classical Nahuatl. But yeah, to be sure, one of the larger languages, still about a million speakers.
The largest Native language in the United States is Navajo, about 200,000 speakers; second largest is Cherokee, about 50,000. Others are less than 10,000, some less than 100, some already extinct.
But in Latin America, you have a million speakers of Aztec, six million speakers of Quechua—lots of languages flourishing there.
They don’t insist on public education in the same way—where they must learn Spanish—so they retain their native languages more than in the U.S., where English dominates.
So I’m an English teacher and a linguist—I’m working against myself. But they pay English teachers more, so that’s what I do for a living, and I try to help Native languages stay alive by not forcing English too aggressively.
Yes, because some language relationships are founded on 50 similarities or less.
When you get 300 for each group, that is significant. But linguists would not accept a tripartite relationship—each relationship would have to stand on its own merit.
By the time everything is sifted, there will probably be enough for each hypothesis to stand on its own merit. But—give us time.
In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Tithing—Putting God First,” Jorge T. Becerra teaches that discipleship requires choosing God first, even when doing so feels uncertain or requires personal sacrifice.
Yet for many, that raises a real question: Why would God ask for something like tithing, especially when resources already feel limited?
I witness that a spiritual power and direction, heretofore unknown, will come into our lives as we keep the law of obedience and sacrifice.
Mike Ash explains that many faith crises are not caused solely by difficult historical or doctrinal questions, but by underlying assumptions—especially rigid or “fundamentalist” expectations about prophets, scripture, and truth. When these assumptions are challenged, individuals experience cognitive dissonance and must resolve the tension by rejecting information, changing beliefs, or adding new understanding.
The talk emphasizes that mature faith requires nuance, context, and informed engagement with both criticism and scholarship. By distinguishing doctrine from tradition, understanding cultural context, and embracing both spiritual and intellectual inquiry, members can develop resilient testimonies that withstand challenging questions.
Faith crises often happen not just because of difficult information, but because of how we understand prophets, scripture, and truth.
Latter-day Saint doctrine does not require prophets to be perfect, and many criticisms—like those found in the CES Letter or claims about the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon—often rely on missing context, rigid assumptions, or incomplete information.
A stronger, more resilient faith comes from combining spiritual experiences with informed understanding, recognizing the difference between doctrine and tradition, and being willing to engage both faithful scholarship and difficult questions.
The Internet and Anti-Mormon Material
Prior to the Internet, how many members owned or read anti-Mormon books or literature? Comparatively, how many members have encountered anti-Mormon literature on the web?
Nowadays, some members stumble across anti material on the web while doing research for a lesson or talk. Sometimes they are drawn in by curiosity. 
It reminds me of the story of the man who was walking down the sidewalk when he came past an insane asylum. The courtyard of the asylum was fenced off by a tall wooden fence so no one could see in or out.
As the man walked along the fence he could hear voices on the other side chanting: “13, 13, 13, 13.”
“What in the world was going on,” the man wondered. Spotting a knot hole in one of the boards of the fence he leaned closer to see what was happening in the courtyard.
As his eye approached the hole, however, a finger suddenly shot out and poked him in the eye. The man recoiled in pain and shock.
Suddenly the voices chanted, “14, 14, 14, 14.”
I think that’s sometimes how it happens with some of the anti-Mormon literature. You wonder, “what is all this about?” And you get kind of drawn into it.
The title of the book that I’ve written of course, is Shaken Faith Syndrome. I culled the information for this book for many years from so many of you, from the things you’ve presented, and even unknowing comments that you’ve made. It’s kind of a FAIR production, I guess you could say.
While there are many reasons that people leave the Church, a shaken faith typically arises from two scenarios:
This second category is the one I address in my book.
Let’s briefly talk about the title of my book: Shaken Faith Syndrome. Some critics have taken exception to my use of “syndrome.” They claim that most English speaking Americans would understand the word to mean an illness or disease.
Therefore (they suggest) I must believe that critics are mentally ill, or that they have something wrong with them for not accepting the restored gospel.
In medicine, “syndrome” typically refers to a disease or illness—such as Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or Downs Syndrome.
In psychology and modern vernacular the term can refer to a response to extenuating circumstances such as the Stockholm Syndrome. (Captives in hostage situations show signs of loyalty to their captor. Elizabeth Smart may have been a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.) Alternatively, to a series of related events, such as the China Syndrome. (“the title of a 1979 movie which refers to the concept, mentioned only jokingly in the film, that if an American nuclear plant melts down, it will melt through the Earth until it reaches China”.)
From Dictionary.com we find the following definition of “syndrome”:
Pathology, Psychiatry:
While the first definition certainly refers to a disorder or illness, the three remaining definitions all could apply to my usage of the term and are obviously used in common English vernacular. (As indicated in the examples given in #4.)
The title, “Shaken Faith Syndrome,” is clearly a play on the problem of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (which seems obvious).
Shaken Baby Syndrome is neither a disease or illness but is a problem caused by shaking an infant. The resulting damage can be death as well as mental or physical disorders caused by damage to the brain.
The damage is caused by someone else—someone that either intentionally or unintentionally hurts or kills the child.
So likewise, LDS critical material can (and has) shaken the faith of active Latter-day Saints. It has killed testimonies or has damaged testimonies to the point of near death.
So I hope you can see why I think the term is an appropriate description of actual events or issues that contribute to deconversion. (Plus, I think the title is catchy).
Having doubt isn’t a sin and it isn’t abnormal. About 95% of Americans believe in God but nearly half— including those who consider themselves to be religiously devout—seriously question their faith from time to time.
The Church umbrella, thankfully, is large enough to include those who struggle with sporadic or chronic doubt.
“To some,” revealed the Lord, “it is given to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful” (D&C 46:13-14).
Joseph F. Smith once said that Latter-day Saints,
“…are given the largest possible latitude for their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel and desires to continue in his membership in the Church, he is permitted to remain.
“…so long as a man believes in God and has a little faith in the Church organization, we nurture and aid that person to continue faithfully as a member of the Church though he may not believe all that is revealed.” 1
Why does doubt cause some to abandon their convictions?
It seems that those who are prone to fundamentalist, dogmatic, or closed-minded perspectives about the gospel or early LDS historical events, are more likely to apostatize when they encounter challenging issues.
I use the term “fundamentalist” in a way that may differ from other usages of the term. I’m not referring to Islamic terrorists, and I’m not referring to modern-day polygamists.
In Christianity, the term often refers to conservative evangelicals who actively affirm what they see as fundamental Christian beliefs. An example is an inerrant Bible: a Bible that is literally interpreted and historically accurate despite any conflicting claims from science and modern scholarship.
By association, the term fundamentalist is also used to describe all those (of various religious beliefs) who take a very rigid, uncompromising, and unchanging approach to their ideologies (or belief systems). This definition more accurately depicts the way the term is used within this book.
Everyone, however—not just “fundamentalists”—have at least some rigid beliefs hidden in the background of their ideological stage.
This can present a problem when our unexamined assumptions are based on sandy foundations rather than on reality.
What happens when we encounter information that conflicts with existing thoughts or actions? You get an uneasy feeling.
Ever had Buyer’s remorse? Do you continue to live with buyer’s remorse? Typically you either return the product or make yourself feel good about your purchase.
In psychology there is a phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance. Cognitions are “thoughts” and “dissonance” means disharmony.
When thoughts conflict, they are out of harmony. Sometimes we can have conflicting thoughts and not realize it, or we may realize it but we are not troubled by it.
When we recognize that we have competing cognitions and when we are troubled by the conflict, we enter a state of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance creates a degree of intellectual, emotional, and even physical discomfort. We naturally take steps to alleviate the discomfort. This typically comes from talking ourselves out of the uneasiness.
For example, most of us have been guilty at some point of speeding. If we are aware that we’re speeding it can create cognitive dissonance.
How do we reduce the uneasiness? We make up excuses.
How about if you’re on a diet but your boss springs for pizza—and you love pizza.
You might say to yourself:
The level of discomfort we feel is directly related to how important we perceive the issue to be.
In the pizza example, we may not feel much uneasiness at all and we may quickly resolve the cognitive dissonance. Let’s suppose, however, that you’re addicted to alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, or pornography.
You know it’s wrong and you may face more serious heartburn when you engage in the addictive activity.
Weight of Beliefs and ExperiencesWhat if you discovered that your assumptions about Joseph Smith’s clothing styles, hair color, or pitch of voice, were incorrect?
These aren’t important issues—they don’t carry a lot of weight. It’s doubtful that discovering competing cognitions on these issues would create emotional turmoil.
It would likely matter, however, if we discovered information implying that Joseph was a fraud or delusional or that the Book of Mormon was merely fiction.
Each person assigns different levels of importance (or “weight”) to their various beliefs (or “cognitions”) and the weight is typically influenced by a variety of factors.
What we personally experience generally carries a lot of weight with our beliefs.
If, for example, you had a stomach ache after every time you drank milk, your belief that milk wasn’t good for you would carry a lot of weight.
Likewise, if you’ve noticed blessings when paying your tithing your belief in the correct principle of tithing would carry a lot of weight.
The Role of Trusted SourcesThe source of a competing cognition also carries a lot of weight.
If your doctor, for instance, told you to eat more popcorn for your digestive tract, you would more likely believe her than if the same advice came from the snack vendor at the movie theater.
Likewise, active members of the Church would be more likely to give credence to the counsel of Church leaders on spiritual issues than they might give to pop-psychologists or TV talk show hosts.
When we encounter cognitive dissonance with weighty issues—such as religious beliefs—we can experience a very uncomfortable and emotional state of mind.
This discomfort has been called a “negative drive state” because it causes psychological tension almost like hunger or thirst and requires immediate attention and resolution.
Reducing this distress may require a change in belief or behavior.
There are at least four ways in which this is generally accomplished, and we are not often consciously aware of doing so.
We will either:
Ben McGuire offers the following example (and I use this example in my book):
Suppose you are playing with a red ball. The fact that you know the ball is red is a cognition.
Then, I come along and comment on how nice your green ball looks. You now have a second cognition—that I believe that the ball is green.
These two cognitions stem from contradictory states—that is, the ball is not both green and red.
If the two cognitions are weighted equally, this might create cognitive dissonance.
Which is to say, that if you valued my opinion as much as your own on determining the way you view reality, you would experience cognitive dissonance.
Assuming that we perceive this issue as important, let’s look at how we might relieve the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, and let’s compare this to a similar scenario wherein we might encounter LDS-critical information.
Reject the New Information as “False” (decide that I am wrong when I claim that the red ball is actually green—I’m either lying or colorblind).
We may reject the anti-LDS information as false—believing instead that critics invented the claim or pulled the information out of context.
By brushing aside the offending information as anti-Mormon propaganda, we could resolve any emotional discomfort or ward off future psychological vexation.
This approach is generally effective because, in reality, many anti-Mormon claims are complete fabrications or are taken out of context.
Reject the New Information as “Unimportant” (decide that the color of the ball is unimportant compared to the enjoyment you get by playing with it).
We may decide that the faith-shaking discovery is unimportant or irrelevant to more important religious beliefs.
We may rightly feel that our acceptance of the gospel is based on a spiritual testimony—which carries more weight with our spiritual convictions than sources we don’t fully trust.
Most of us don’t have the time, energy, or resources to search out answers to every accusation, and so it often seems natural to set aside conflicting information as unimportant when we already have a conviction that the Church is true.
Options 1 & 2 are often coupled with avoidance of LDS-critical literature.
Both options are also typically compelled by emotion—possibly fueled by spiritual evidence— rather than a serious examination of the issues.
While our conclusions may be correct (in this case, that the Church is true despite anti-Mormon claims), the first two options usually reinforce the original belief without a rigorous and open-minded investigation of competing cognitions.
Latter-day Saints aren’t the only ones that resolve issues in this matter. And such an option for resolving cognitive dissonances isn’t limited to religious issues.
According to a recent study at Emory University, for instance, committed Democrats and Republicans both generally rely on emotion rather than reason when evaluating information that challenges their political views.
When brain activity was measured from test-subjects who were asked to evaluate negative information, the circuits involved in reasoning were not particularly engaged.
Instead, the researchers recorded brain activity in the emotional centers of the brain—especially those areas known to be involved in resolving conflicts.
Once the test subjects “had come to conclusions that fit their underlying beliefs—essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted—the brain circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust were turned off, while the circuits involved in behavior reward were strongly activated….”
As one of the researchers explained, everyone from politicians to scientists reasons with emotionally based judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret the “facts.”
Although we tend to defend and rationalize our beliefs, many people do change their views.
Critics, however, generally believe that all Mormons take the emotional, less-rational, or irrational approach to cognitive dissonance. Why?
According to many critics, no rational person could study the disconfirming evidence and remain a believer unless they were duped or in denial.
The critics, of course, are just as likely to opt for emotional and less-rational approaches for maintaining their disbelief when confronted with evidence that supports Mormonism. (As will be shown later.)
While it’s certainly possible that some Mormons manage their dissonance in less rational ways, other theories suggest that religious people often have rational reasons for remaining believers despite conflicting evidence.
Commitment, Religion, and Perceived BenefitsAll of us, for example, are involved in relationships (with spouses, parents, siblings, or offspring) to which we maintain commitments despite unsettling information.
We tend to recognize that there are long term benefits to sticking with committed relationships, in spite of the short-term costs, which are sometimes quite high.
People committed to their religion accrue benefits such as answers to the meaning of life, or a relationship with the divine.
Rational people will sacrifice for their religious beliefs when they get more in return.
They will even rationalize their behavior and beliefs for some time without a payback, but most of us will not rationalize indefinitely unless our beliefs produce the payback we expect—and many people find that religion does deliver the expected payback.
Some members may choose to live with doubt. They might continue to question the truth claims of Mormonism, but put aside the unsettling issues in favor of the rewards they find in assembling with the Saints.
Those, however, who don’t put their doubts aside—who don’t consciously or unconsciously avoid LDS-critical material and continue to suffer from cognitive dissonance—may eventually move to one of two alternative options: changing cognitions, or adding cognitions.
Option 3: Change Cognitions or Beliefs3. Change Cognitions or Beliefs (decide that you were wrong about the ball being red—it really is green).
Some people are unable to dismiss doubt-generating discoveries as false or unimportant.
The new competing information may sound persuasive or it may appear to come from a credible source—which, in turn, adds weight to the competing cognition.
We get anxiety when both cognitions seem evenly balanced. This anxiety can build, causing a lot of discomfort, until we seek to restore cognitive consonance (“thought harmony”).
When the tension is reduced, we feel better. Indeed, many ex-Mormons claim that they went through a range of emotions before leaving Mormonism but eventually felt relief once they finally left the Church.
Of course, if cognitive dissonance is at play the same relief is also generally felt by those who come to grips with difficult issues and remain in the Church.
In either scenario, the turmoil caused by cognitive dissonance is resolved.
Once the discomfort is resolved and their minds are made up to exit the Church, many ex-members avoid future cognitive dissonance that could come from evidence that favors Church claims.
To alleviate this tension they generally explain away pro-LDS arguments in the same two less-rational ways as many members explain away antiMormon literature—they conclude that their former LDS testimony was either false (perhaps a result of feelings, hope, desire, or confirmation bias), or the testimony is rejected as unimportant (no amount of spiritual testimony can compete with the newly perceived “truth” of the secular or historical conflicting evidence).
Like some of their believing counterparts, they often avoid literature that runs contrary to their belief or in this case, their unbelief. In other words, they avoid those evidences that strengthen LDS arguments.
They often decide from the start that LDS scholarly studies are biased, unreliable, or ineffectual before even reading such material.
By disregarding all LDS scholarly studies that challenge their unbelief, they avoid repeating their experience of psychological anxiety.
It’s fairly common, for instance, to encounter critics who are completely unaware of LDS scholarly and defensive studies, yet who claim that anti-LDS arguments prove Mormonism to be fraudulent.
One anonymous Internet-posting critic, for example, claimed that evidence proved that the Book of Abraham was a fraud, while simultaneously admitting that he was completely unfamiliar with the latest scholarly rebuttals to the anti-Mormon accusations.
Another on-line critic claimed that he had no intention of reading LDS scholarly arguments because doing so “would be an incredible waste of time.”
He was satisfied, he bragged, that the truth is not found in Mormonism, and he had no need to see counter arguments.
They’ve already concluded that the Church isn’t true, they believe that anti-Mormon claims provide evidence for their conclusions, and they don’t want answers when their minds are already made up (actually examining pro-LDS rebuttals might recreate cognitive dissonance).
Ironically, the critics are usually the ones who claim to be open-minded in contrast to closed-minded Mormons.
Entrenched Positions and Resistance to ChangeSeveral ex-Mormons, for instance, have said that their opposition to the Church is so strong that they would be unwilling to return regardless of any new information that might come forth.
According to a 2001 informal poll of nearly 400 ex-members, for example, over half said that “nothing” could open the door for their return to Mormonism.
It’s ironic to see that some ex-members, who claim to leave for purely intellectual reasons, actually refuse to examine LDS intellectual arguments for nonintellectual reasons.
4. Adding Cognitions or Information to Validate the Original Belief (get another opinion on the color of the ball).
Additional supporting information can shift the weight of evidence to tilt in favor of our original beliefs.
For instance, in the example of the red or green ball, if you discovered that I was color-blind, your personal belief would, once again, carry more weight making it easier to choose between the competing cognitions.
As one Book of Mormon example, we’ll explore the anti-Mormon argument that the Book of Mormon plates could not be made of gold because they would have been too heavy for Joseph to carry when he ran through the forest from would-be ambushers.
When we add the cognition, however, that the plates were said to be gold in appearance and that early Mesoamericans used gold-appearing metals which weighed less than solid gold, we find that the anti-Mormon cognition does not equal or outweigh the pro-Mormon cognition.
Adding cognitions typically calls for a paradigm shift.
We would have to recognize, for example, that the “golden” plates need not be made of pure gold to be called gold (most wedding rings are 14kt gold which is about 58% gold and 42% other alloys).
An overall paradigm shift for Latter-day Saints may require a more nuanced understanding of the role of prophets, scripture, and personal revelation, as well as the limitations of science and scholarship.
As I noted earlier, a fundamentalist mindset seems to make believers more vulnerable to testimony damage.
Some testimonies, quite frankly, are built on sandy foundations such as folklore, tradition, the admiration of a Church leader, the enjoyment of the LDS social organizations, or memberships based on family pressure.
When there is no true conversion of the spirit, it’s often more difficult to accept those things that must be known by faith alone.
Members who do have spiritual testimonies, however, are not immune to personal apostasy.
Sadly, we know from history that even some formerly stalwart members with significant spiritual experiences—such as Sidney Rigdon and the Three Witnesses—have apostatized.
We learn from Lehi’s vision that some of those who had tasted of the fruit (God’s love), abandon the fruit when pressured from outside influences (see 1 Nephi 8:25, 28).
There are numerous—and oftentimes complex—factors that contribute to each person’s reasons for belief or disbelief.
I’ve noticed, however, a few common elements among many of those who leave the Church over supposedly intellectual reasons.
Many former-Mormons who once had testimonies of the Church also had fundamentalist views about scripture as well as the nature and role of prophets.
These perceptions present themselves as stumbling blocks when they are faced with intellectually challenging issues.
Confusing Rumors or Traditions with DoctrineMost of us embrace concepts, beliefs, or positions primarily because we’ve never thought of questioning them.
Unfortunately, we occasionally confuse beliefs on peripheral teachings—such as rumors, traditions, or personal opinions—with LDS doctrines.
Sometimes we are unaware of how to think outside the box of conventional LDS interpretations. (Even if those interpretations are based on tradition rather than revelation.) Or we may not know how to handle complex issues.
If we build our house of straw on non-doctrinal ideologies, and the structure collapses on the sandy foundation of misunderstanding, our entire belief system may crumble as well.
Seeing Things in Black and WhiteSometimes we may, unintentionally, see things in unambiguous black and white.
Such a black and white fundamentalist mindset can set us up for problems.
To the fundamentalist, there is no middle ground.
If they discover what they believe to be persuasive information that there was no world-wide flood, or that actual horses were absent from ancient America, then their entire ideology crumbles beneath them.
And when some people become disaffected—even over false assumptions—further enlightenment or counter-evidences may fail to resuscitate the testimony.
Not infrequently, we are too quick to uncritically accept the things we hear or read—even from sources such as Church leaders or in Church magazines.
It’s not that their words aren’t usually true, but we should use our brains as well as our spirits when we study the gospel.
President N. Eldon Tanner reportedly complained about “the tendency of Church members to read the official magazines with …uncritical acceptance, without engaging in the process of thought, judgment, and inspired confirmation that genuine internal dialogue with the written or spoken word makes possible.”
Too often, we uncritically accept rumors (including faith-promoting rumors) in lieu of facts; traditions, speculation and opinion in lieu of revelation; and unrealistic expectations and illusions of prophets and scripture in lieu of mature and realistic perspectives.
In short, we must recognize the need to open our minds and potentially understand gospel topics in ways we may not have seen them before.
“Disillusionment,” observes psychologist Dr. Wendy Ulrich, “is a very good thing. I do not want to live a life based on illusions, and being disillusioned is very valuable to me.”
Illusions and misconceptions are straw men—they are easily destroyed by accurate information.
Sometimes, part of our testimony—as evidenced by the claims of many ex-Mormons—may, unknowingly, be grounded on illusions and misconceptions.
When critical information destroys conclusions based on straw men or false assumptions, some members will lose their entire testimonies.
The most common misconceptions that seem to factor into personal apostasy include:
Prophets are not infallible.
“I make no claim of infallibility,” said President Spencer W. Kimball.
President Harold B. Lee indicated that not every word spoken or written by a General Authority need be considered as inspired. And Elder J. Reuben Clark said that “‘even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.’”
The purpose and mission of the Church is to “invite all to come unto Christ” (D&C 20:59).
Prophets stand as leaders in this invitation and the things they do and say (as prophets) are intended to accomplish this goal.
How do we come unto Christ? The Book of Mormon gives us the six-point pattern:
This list entails personal commitments, attitudes, and relationships with Heavenly Father and Christ. We must make personal commitments and interactions with the Lord.
Prophets help guide us to the waters of truth, but they cannot drink for us.
Guiding us does not mean that all their comments are inerrant.
Expectations vs. RealityEx-members generally claim that issues such as polygamy, the translation of the Book of Abraham, or Brigham Young’s racial views created cognitive dissonance that eventually caused them to leave the Church.
Usually, however, the actual competing cognitions are generally a set of assumptions or perceptions of “what a prophet is and how a prophet should behave—compared with evidence about what the prophet was and how the prophet behaved.”
One critic, for example, noted his bewilderment at how the Book of Mormon could be a very poorly written text, if it “were truly dictated from the mouth of an omniscient god….”
Likewise, he seems perplexed as to how Brigham Young, who claimed “to speak for the same omniscient god,” could have fallible thoughts about the cosmos.
Another ex-Mormon recently claimed that “every last thing that came from Joseph’s mouth and/or pen should have been Universal truth.”
Unfortunately, sometimes believing members seem to share this fundamentalist assumption.
Prophets are not born as prophets and they are not raised in social and cultural vacuums. When they are called as prophets they don’t suddenly become divine—they are still men.
Prophets have, and are entitled to, their own opinions, their own misconceptions, their own biases, and their own mistakes.
When a Latter-day Saint is called to be:
they bring to their calling many of those things which make up their personalities and worldview, including their strengths, weaknesses, and preconceived ideas.
The same can be said for prophets.
Gospel education, for the prophets and the masses, is an evolutionary process—the same as any other type of education.
Hence the need for continuing revelation. Neither complete doctrines nor specific doctrinal details are always revealed all at once.
As Joseph Smith once said, “It is not wisdom that we should have all knowledge at once presented before us; but that we should have a little at a time; then we can comprehend it.”
The Nature of RevelationAs evidenced by the scriptures and Restoration accounts, revelation is typically not dispensed as an unsolicited gift but is given, instead, in answer to petitioning God.
The First Vision, the Joseph Smith Translation, the Word of Wisdom, and more, all came in answer to prayer.
If the questions aren’t asked, the answers are rarely given.
In the gospel, all of us are novices at various levels of understanding; as learning increases, we are better able to comprehend and express advanced ideas.
Just because a prophet has the keys to the priesthood and the authority to receive revelation from God for the direction of the Church, doesn’t mean that every word spoken by a prophet is infallible, inspired, or factually accurate.
B. Confusing Tradition with DoctrineUnfortunately, but unavoidably, we—and even prophets—sometimes confuse tradition-based interpretations with doctrines or official positions. Of the many possible examples, I’ll choose Book of Mormon geography as an illustration.
Most members have believed (and perhaps still believe) that Book of Mormon events took place over the entire hemisphere of North and South America.
A cursory reading of the Book of Mormon suggests that North America was the land northward and that South America was the land southward. Present-day Panama naturally comes to mind as the “narrow neck” of land connecting the north and the south.
It’s likely that Joseph Smith, most of his contemporaries, and probably most modern day prophets assumed and even embraced this hemispheric view.
It also seems likely that Joseph and his contemporaries believed that the Indian remnants of his local vicinity furnished evidence of the lives and wars of the Nephites and Lamanites.
From where did such beliefs arise?
A superficial reading of the Book of Mormon—in the context of cultural beliefs about the Indians in Joseph’s day—plausibly suggests such a scenario.
Some early nineteenth-century frontiersmen, for example, believed that the Indians were originally white settlers from the lost tribes of Israel.
In the weakness of early LDS understanding it would have made logical sense to envision Book of Mormon geography in context of what they believed about the existence of Indians in North America.
Early LDS leader and writer, Orson Pratt, became a primary promoter of the hemispheric Book of Mormon geography and some of his thoughts were eventually incorporated as footnotes to geographical events in the 1879 edition of the Book of Mormon.
These notes were removed in the 1920 edition, but the influence had already made its impact on many Latter-day Saints.
The hemispheric model was born from supposition in the context of nineteenth-century American speculation and achieved quasi-official status among many members because of tradition rather than revelation.
For most members, there was no need to question a hemispheric geography—it appeared to be the obvious interpretation of the Book of Mormon text.
Shifting Understanding Over TimeThrough the years, however, there were a few Latter-day Saints (both lay members and leaders) who questioned a hemispheric geography.
Book of Mormon travel distances suggest a limited geography, and several scholarly studies propose a Mesoamerican location for Book of Mormon events. Today, most LDS scholars and an increasing number of members and leaders believe that Book of Mormon events transpired in Mesoamerica.
It was the traditional view of a hemispheric geography, however, that was passed from generation to generation of Latter-day Saints as an unarguable truth. This “truth” was spoken from the pulpit, integrated into manuals, taught in classes, and casually implied as LDS doctrine for nearly two hundred years among most Church members.
If we assume that Book of Mormon events actually took place in a limited geography, how do we reconcile the fact that past prophets were wrong about the location of Book of Mormon events or the makeup of pre-Columbian peoples?
(It should be remembered that some LDS members—including some early LDS leaders—did not unquestioningly accept the traditional interpretations.)
Tradition and Resistance to ChangeWe might similarly ask how Old Testament prophets could be wrong about the shape of the earth.
In some ways, traditions seem to follow Newton’s first law of motion which states (in part) that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by extraneous forces.
Until some new information unbalances our traditional views and makes us critically examine those views, we generally tend to uncritically accept most traditions—even when they are wrong.
Prophets, like other mortals, accept traditions that may be in error simply because they’ve never thought about challenging such traditions.
Sometimes when new light is given we resist. Most of us are averse to change; after all, we are creatures of habit.
“I have tried for a number of years,” said Joseph Smith, “to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions.”
It really doesn’t matter how long or how many people (including prophets) believed an erroneous non doctrinal idea.
Doctrine is not determined by how long something is believed, or by the belief’s popularity.
As English author, Gilbert Keith Chesterton, once observed,
“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
When we recognize that both members and non-members sometimes mistake official LDS doctrines with traditions, procedures, policies, and the presentation of doctrine, many anti-LDS arguments lose what potency they might have had.
Our personal worldviews (what Germans refer to as Weltanschauungs) are a composite of many complex factors.
Our worldviews are as lenses that color the way we analyze our environment and the environment of others.
Often, we can’t understand how other societies could think, say, or do some of the things they do.
Not infrequently we impose our interpretations, understandings, worldviews and ideologies on foreign cultures or different social constructs.
This phenomenon is found in all cultures and in all time periods. It is not limited to Americans, modern people, or Mormons.
Language, Culture, and InterpretationOur assumptions cause us to interpret words and events in ways that are sometimes at odds with what actually was meant or what actually happened.
Sometimes a word can mean something different depending on context.
If someone were to translate the word into another language, they would need to understand how—or perhaps when—the term was used in English in order to make a correct translation.
Non-LDS Bible scholars Malina and Rohrbaugh, explain that all readers “must interact with the writing and ‘complete’ it if it is to make sense.”
“Every written document invites immediate participation on the part of the reader. Thus writings provide what is necessary, but cannot provide everything.”
Because reading has strong social elements, readers who share an author’s social environment are more likely to fill in the blanks with instinctively correct mental pictures culled from their own experiences and culture.
Reasonable clarity is enjoyed because of the common social system.
Understanding Different Social ContextsWhen the social system between reader and writer is dissimilar—which is often the case with texts written in different times or from different cultures—the mental pictures that a reader unconsciously conjures may be drastically different from the images the writer intended to portray.
When the reader or writer comes from a different social system, then
“as a rule, non understanding—or at best misunderstanding—will be the result.”
Generally a reader’s mental image—especially the image conjured by an uninformed reader—will be influenced by his own culture (a phenomenon known as “recontextualization”).
This problem helps us recognize the importance of understanding different cultures in their own context.
In the Bible, for example, we frequently find references to the “whole earth.” When we hear this phrase as twenty-first century Americans, we think of the entire planet.
Ancient people, however—those for whom the scriptures were initially written—did not envision the earth as a planet in the same sense we do today.
To the people of the Bible, whole earth generally referred to the inhabited lands of which they knew—this was their world.
In Exodus 10:12, for instance, we read that the Lord caused the “land of Egypt” to be swarmed by locusts. Yet in verse 15 we read that the locusts covered “the face of the whole earth.” Obviously the whole earth still referred to Egypt.
Similarly, in Luke 2:1 we read that Caesar Augustus sent a decree to tax “all the world.” I seriously doubt that Augustus was trying to extract tax from all the nations in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
Understanding the ancient use of “earth” in the Bible helps us understand the use of terms “earth” and “land” in the Book of Mormon—both of which generally refer to localized areas.
Understanding this difference is important when we endeavor to comprehend what Book of Mormon authors were saying in relation to geography and the possibility of other inhabitants.
When we try to understand nineteenth century LDS events, as well as the events in the Book of Mormon, as real events that happened to real people within the context that they lived and reacted to their environment, we find that many of the critics’ objections become less problematic or may disappear altogether.
In fact, when we analyze the Book of Mormon through a lens that assumes an ancient Mesoamerica production culture, details in the book make more sense than if we assume a modern production culture.
Science and scholarship encompass rigorous disciplines that enable us to know more about the world of today as well as the world of the past.
As Latter-day Saints, we should recognize that truth is truth – regardless the source.
As Joseph Smith said,
“One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may…. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.”
Many educated members acknowledge that the facts uncovered by science, and the theories formulated by scholars and historians are generally true and accurate or at least reasonably plausible.
Nevertheless, there are some things that science cannot currently answer.
Limits of Scientific and Historical InquiryDespite the claims of the critics, for instance, DNA science and archaeology are too limited to damage the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I don’t have the time to get into the details here, but I discuss both in greater depth in my book.
Likewise, Historical scholarship can’t tell us that God created the earth, that Jesus rose from the grave, or that the Father & Son visited Joseph Smith.
It’s also important to understand that there is no such thing as a truly unbiased observer.
Historians try to reconstruct past events. Many critics claim that Mormons are biased and therefore put a “spin” on their historical narratives.
These same critics claim that since they are not Mormon—they are therefore unbiased.
This, in turn (they imply) offers a reason to trust their account over LDS accounts because they are just “letting the facts speak for themselves”.
Regardless of one’s education or intelligence, all of us have limited knowledge that is, at times, fragmentary, flawed, and in at least some instances, distorted.
What we can’t know or do not fully understand we support with what we perceive as understanding.
No one can completely divest themselves of bias, ideologies, or presuppositions.
These biases are generally at the heart of how we approach an issue. They are the hinge for many crucial arguments that we accept. And a major factor in what we consider to be confirming or supporting evidence.
Our perceptions—or how we understand things—are always colored by a variety of factors including:
Lest we suppose that bias and ideology are weaknesses limited strictly to the unlearned or to those who believe in the supernatural, it’s noteworthy that the philosophies of science and history point out the same weakness in even the most rigorous disciplines.
Pure objectivity is a myth.
No scholarship is completely (or even substantially) free from agenda, preference, ambition, or bias.
The late scientist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn, for example, taught that scientific communities share a “constellation of beliefs” known as paradigms.
These paradigms—which denote a group’s bias and ideology—include
As another researcher explains, these underlying assumptions dictate
“what scholars view as established fact, what kind of new data they look for, the relative significance they assign to different data, …and the interpretive lenses they prefer.”
Dr. David Hacket Fischer, non-Mormon history professor at Brandeis University, notes,
“the Baconian fallacy consists in the idea that a historian can operate without the aid of preconceived questions, hypotheses, ideas, assumptions, or general presuppositions of any kind.”
“‘Every vision of history,’” writes non-LDS historian Steven Best, “‘functions as a specific lens or optic that a theorist employs to illuminate some facet of human reality. Each perspective is both enabling, allowing a strongly focused study, and limiting, preventing consideration of other perspectives.’”
Dan Vogel—a critic who has authored numerous publications questioning traditional interpretations of LDS history—claims that once an historian decides that traditional LDS accounts have “no historical basis, then Smith’s claims about the angel and gold plates cannot be taken at face value.”
Elsewhere he acknowledged his “inclination [is] …to interpret any claim of the paranormal… as delusion or fraud.”
For him, there can be no communication from God; there can be no authentic scripture.
Because all revelatory experiences are dismissed from the start, all explanations for the claims of revelation must come from environmental and natural sources. Despite any evidence to the contrary.
In a public forum Vogel wrote that to take
“Joseph at his word, I would have to believe the [Book of Mormon] is historical…but I don’t. If the [Book of Mormon] is not historical, then what was [Joseph Smith] about?”
For those (like himself) who do not believe in an historical Book of Mormon or the existence of Nephites,
“then one is obliged to explain the plates and witnesses” with a theory “consistent with that conclusion” “no matter how difficult it seems.”
A decade ago, Richard Bushman astutely observed that
“believing historians are more inclined to be true to the basic sources than unbelieving ones” and that “secular historians are… more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.”
With the foregone conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not historical the question is not,
“Did Joseph actually translate an ancient text?” but rather,
“What factors influenced Joseph in writing his fictional Book of Mormon?”
These examples provide excellent illustrations of the way paradigms
In areas such as history, we are faced with competing paradigms that are influenced by the ideology of the historian.
Some critics claim or imply that unlike Mormon apologists (those who defend LDS beliefs) they (the critics) are free from bias. They simply let the facts speak for themselves.
Such critics claim to be “dedicated to pursuing the truth regardless of where it leads”. Whereas apologists supposedly know the “conclusions at the start” and sift “the facts and evidence to find support.”
Such a claim is absurd, however. In light of the fact that no mortal is able to completely divest oneself of bias.
While adding cognitions may salvage damaged testimonies, a change in paradigms before encountering challenging issues often serves as an inoculation against shaken faith syndrome.
When you think about inoculation, it protects people against diseases. But there’s always a few people that it can hurt. And we run into that problem even with trying to inoculate members against some of these anti-Mormon claims.
Dan Peterson, writing in a public forum, offered this example. It’s based on a lecture he attended by the late Stanley Kimball regarding the complexity of LDS history. 
He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history.
Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious.
Level B, however, is the anti-Mormon version of the same story. On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
Well, there is a level C that is a synthesis of the two.
It’s both. It’s pretty much like A, but it exposes people to B.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A. Or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are sometimes lost on Level B.
The problem is that for somebody to move to C, they have to be exposed to B.
And for some people, that can cause testimony damage.
So it’s a challenging issue. How to teach people about the rest of the nuances out there without hurting a testimony.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C. Which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A.
But some do. Whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way.
Many good Saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved.
Interestingly, people that move to C usually keep their testimonies intact. And have a richer understanding of their beliefs, as well.
To reach Level C we must:
Fortunately for those who are struggling with challenging questions, we have the benefit of living in a day when LDS and non-LDS scholars have made substantial contributions to our understanding of scriptural histories as well as LDS history.
We live in a day when additional insights can ameliorate concerns over challenging issues. This, in turn, can soften our hearts to the whisperings of the Spirit allowing us to receive a spiritual witness. 
The biggest problem with adding cognitions is that most members remain ignorant of LDS scholarship and apologetic responses. Many members have never heard of FARMS or FAIR.
Many of the older generation have heard of Hugh Nibley, but how many have actually read his works?
When some members encounter persuasive sounding anti-LDS information they accept it as accurate. Because they’re unaware of pro-LDS rebuttals, these new arguments win by default.
It may suddenly seem obvious that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and that his scriptures were fictional creations.
There are, however, cogent, scholarly, and logical responses to anti-Mormon accusations. And when struggling members do find additional evidences to support their beliefs, testimonies generally remain intact.
I hope that our efforts see an increase in recognition. And that more and more members will be made aware of:
As Sir Francis Bacon said, ipsa scientia potestas est (knowledge is power).
May more members strengthen their testimonies by embracing the knowledge of LDS apologetics and scholarship.
Thank you.
When encountering critics of the Church:
Most critics, in my experience, are closed-minded to begin with.
Answer: And that’s really true. Years ago, I used to get more on the message boards and try to debate the critics. I found that pointless.
Basically, it’s a matter of determining: does this person really have questions, or are they just wanting to argue? And if there’s really questions, then I’m willing to engage in a discussion.
If they just are trying to score points, then it’s not worth my time. I have more important things to do.
Thus far education on how to respond to anti-Mormon literature is not a part of the CES system or missionary training. With increased use of the internet, how do you expect this to change?
Answer: Richard Bushman gave a seminar on apologetics to several people from the CES system. Scott Gordon was there, and I think some other FAIR members shared some ideas. I think there’s some effort from the Church to teach the members about some of these more difficult issues.
When will your talk be available?
Answer: It’s available in book form in the back of the conference right now.
When should we begin to inoculate a member? When and under what circumstances?
Answer: That’s a tough one. I think that, you know, the saying is that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
The problem is that some people like to throw out these interesting things for shock value—even members do.
I’ve seen that sometimes in elders quorum or Sunday School. It’s like, “Hey, do you know that Joseph Smith had so many wives,” etc.
And they do it just to, you know, make themselves look good or as a shock value.
We need to be sensitive that we cannot be participants in damaging anybody’s testimony.
If we present anything controversial, we really should try to expose those things in a faithful context.
And so, it’s rewarding and enriching rather than damaging.
So what is the true color of the ball?
Answer: Purple, I guess.
When the prophet speaks, the debate is done?
Answer: That’s from an old era thing—“When the president speaks, the thinking has been done.”
It’s been repudiated by… I can’t even remember now, my mind’s gone blank. But there’s a Dialogue article about it. That’s not the position of the Church.
There’s several quotes in my book that talk about this. The Brethren expect us to think for ourselves, and the Lord expects us to think for ourself.
You think of Lehi’s vision. Okay, he had his vision, and then his sons asked what happened.
But what did Nephi do? He didn’t just ask about the vision.
What did he do? He went to the Lord himself and said, “Help me understand this.”
Okay, that should be our example. We get stuff from General Conference and from the Brethren. Then we’re supposed to go to the Lord and receive our own confirmation and understand ourselves.
Thank you.
In his October 2025 General Conference address, “Encounter at the Empty Tomb,” Dieter F. Uchtdorf teaches that faith in Jesus Christ often begins not with perfect understanding, but with a willingness to move forward in devotion, even in moments of grief, confusion, or unanswered questions.
Like the women who came to the Savior’s tomb early that Easter morning, some may wonder: If I don’t fully understand or feel certain, does my faith still count? [Read more…] about Encounter at the Empty Tomb
Scott Gordon uses a personal story about repairing a truck to illustrate how not everything found online is reliable. He applies this lesson to common criticisms of the Church, particularly regarding the Book of Mormon translation process, showing that these issues have long been publicly available and are often misunderstood rather than hidden.
The talk emphasizes that while historical details can be interesting, they are secondary to the core truth claims of the gospel—especially the Book of Mormon. It encourages individuals to seek answers from trusted sources, remain spiritually grounded, and respond to doubt or criticism with patience and faith. The speaker concludes by bearing testimony and urging love and understanding toward those who struggle or leave the Church.
Not everything online is true—especially claims about Church history. The speaker shows that controversial topics like the seer stone were never hidden, just misunderstood. Focus on trusted sources, stay grounded in faith, and remember that the truth of the Book of Mormon is what matters most.
So this—this is my pickup truck. I bet you didn’t expect to see that in a conference, right?
It was my father’s. I inherited it from him, and in case you don’t notice, it’s really old—like, it’s older than some of the people sitting in the audience here. And many of the plastic parts on it were broken and damaged by the sun.
In fact, when I touched the tail light, my finger went all the way through the plastic lens because it was so corroded by the sun.
So I decided I wanted to fix it up and make the truck just a little bit nicer. So I tried to replace all of the plastic parts on it, and I replaced—it was going really well—and I would replace most of them until I tried to replace the air vents.
This is the “after” picture, not the before. I didn’t think to take a “before” picture. I mean, the before picture was just kind of a square hole—that is what it was.
So when I tried to replace those air vents, I looked for the parts, and I discovered there were no parts in the United States. Didn’t exist—too old.
So I had to order parts from Malaysia and wait for them to come, and it took a whole month. And so I finally got them, and with excitement I went down to my truck, and I realized I didn’t know how to put it in. I had no idea.
So where did I go to get the answers? YouTube, right? YouTube has the answer to everything related to car repairs.
So I looked at YouTube, and I found a video that explained exactly how to do it. And what it said is you could take a couple of butter knives, and there’s like a button on the ends of these vents, and all you have to do is put the butter knives in on each end and press it in, and it’ll just slip right into the hole.
And I thought, like, well, that sounds pretty easy—I’ll do that.
Okay, and so I put the knives on each end, and I pushed in.
And the vent completely collapsed and fell apart.
So I went back to YouTube, and I looked around again, and I found a different video. And this new video started by saying, contrary to what some other videos claim, you can’t simply bend the parts and slip them in—you have to take the dashboard apart.
So I had to buy new parts from Malaysia, wait for them to be shipped to me, and try again. And this time, it did work. 
So why am I telling you this story?
Well, it’s to illustrate that not everything we learn on the internet is true. In our mind, we say, of course I know that—but in our heart and in our soul, sometimes we’re afraid that the things we read on the internet might be true.
And we occasionally panic when we read things that go against our beliefs. And the fear that it could possibly be true can sometimes shake our faith—we stop listening, we stop exploring, we simply take it as fact.
Every day I get emails from people saying they just learned something about the church on the internet, and they wonder why they didn’t know it before. And they often assume the church has hidden it from them.
For example, I’ve seen several people on TikTok and YouTube who are very upset that there’s a claim that Joseph Smith used the Nephite breastplate, known as—or often referred to as—the Urim and Thummim when he started translating the Book of Mormon, but later shifted to using a small, dark-colored stone called the seer stone. 
And in 1870, in talking about the Book of Mormon translation, Emma Smith said,
“Now the first part that my husband translated was translated by use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part Martin Harris lost. After that, he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather dark in color.”
Well, I’ve been told the church has hidden this fact for many years.
One prominent church critic—who was discussed earlier in an earlier presentation—brings up this issue seven times in his booklet. Clearly he thought it was important, if not devastating. Perhaps it was a smoking gun.
So what happened? Why did the church hide this for so long?
Well, the answer is—they didn’t.
The information has been around and accessible for a long time. Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and Emma Smith all spoke about it. Their quotes can easily be found on this matter using Google.
You can even read about it in the anti–Latter-day Saint book Mormonism Unvailed, written in 1834, which can also be found online. 
It has been published in several places:
The 1993 Ensign article was written by—this, the writer might be somewhat obscure to you—his name was Russell M. Nelson.
So clearly, this information can easily be found and is not hidden.
It is the ease of finding examples like this that can bring up the admittedly disliked moniker of “lazy learners.”
When I brought up this example recently, the response I got back was that we only mentioned it eight times in 40-plus years, and the paintings about the translation didn’t show it exactly that way, so that proves the Church was trying to hide it.
Well, it clearly isn’t a secret. It was in Church magazines—but admittedly, it also isn’t taught in most Church Sunday School classes.
If it’s not a secret, why don’t we teach it in Sunday School?
Well, first, Joseph Smith was questioned several times on translation, and he would simply repeat the phrase that it had been done by the gift and power of God. And one time he added, “It is not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.”
So it is not Joseph Smith—it is other witnesses who talk about the method of translation. Joseph Smith obviously didn’t think the method was very important.
Secondly, exactly how the Book of Mormon is translated is not really relevant to our living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is simply a historical detail.
Whether that detail is right or wrong does not change the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And in our Sunday School classes, we’re really not a Sunday School class of historical details—we try to teach Sunday School classes to help people better follow Jesus Christ and improve their lives.
It seems that critics don’t like the method of the Book of Mormon translation, but they ignore the results.
Or, if he used the right method, the Church failed to tell us about it—and the proof is the illustration from the Book of Mormon that doesn’t show the stone.
But he did use the method that’s in the illustration—he just didn’t use it for the whole book.
Plus, illustrations are not meant to be photographs and are seldom historically accurate.
Feel free to go to your local community college—I happen to know a community college really well, I work at one—and have a conversation with the art teacher there about it.
Or you could type it into ChatGPT—and I tried that—and it comes back that no, illustrations are not generally historically accurate.
In a recent discussion I had on this topic, it occurred to me that the critics were complaining that to aid in the translation, Joseph Smith may have used a stone he found.
I should say he may have used the stone that he found instead of, as they previously believed, two stones found by a previous prophet.
So to summarize this: two stones from a different prophet are okay, but one stone from Joseph Smith proves the Church is false.
The attitude of the critics on this topic reminds me of a situation I heard from a man during a priesthood meeting discussion.
He said that after he had been married for a few years, he decided he did not like his wife. They were not getting along. He thought she was overly critical of him and thought it was a mistake that he’d ever married her.
But before he divorced her, someone—and I believe, if I remember right, it was actually his attorney—told him to start a daily journal.
And each day, he should write down one good thing about his wife—one good thing she had done or said or that he noticed.
And he said the first week it was almost an impossible task. He didn’t notice anything worthwhile, but he dutifully wrote down some small things that she did.
She did wash the dishes, and she prepared lunches for the children.
And as he did this daily, it became easier and easier to see the good things that she was doing and to recognize what a wonderful person she was.
One day, while he was away at work, his wife found his journal. And she didn’t say anything—she decided it was a good idea, so she started her own journal.
And they are now happily married, and they’re the best of friends, and they still keep their journals.
Sometimes I think the critics, just like this man, could see no good in his wife. Critics sometimes can see no good in the Church.
Everything—even innocent behavior from members of the Church—must have some nefarious motive.
But when you only look for the bad, you only find the bad. When you look for the good, you find the good far exceeds any negative things you struggle with, and you live a much happier life.
So, okay—the method of translation is certainly interesting to discuss, but as I said before, it really is simply a historical detail.
No matter what the translation method is, we have a Book of Mormon. It’s a tangible object. It’s real.
And you can’t simply explain it away. As you read it, you recognize the miracle of that book. 
The Influence of Online Voices
Online influencers simply want clicks on their online videos—we heard about that today—and the more outrageous the claim, the more clicks you get and the more money they make.
And they often make sure each claim is as controversial as possible to maximize the clicks. Notice the bloody ax gratuitously included in this slide to increase interest.
To many people, it seems that a random person on TikTok is more authoritative than any real historians or scholars, and must be believed if they can make a good video. 
The citizen journalist has become the harbinger of truth, even when that person may be simply repeating old, long-ago refuted rumors and old anti-Mormon books.
Elder Russell M. Ballard has said,
“Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselytize others. They rely on sophistry to deceive and entice others to their views. They set themselves up for a light unto the world, and they may get gain and praise to the world.”
So FAIR is here to provide basic information and facts related to many of these topics.
We’ve often been dismissed by the critics—”oh, they simply engage in ad hominem attacks!” I hear. But when I ask, “where?” (and I have asked) the critics haven’t been able to find examples.
That’s because we go to great lengths to talk about the arguments and not the people.
That’s not to say we’re perfect at it. There have been occasions when we’ve grown frustrated with people making absurd claims without evidence, and I have questioned the honesty of the author or podcaster.
But it’s always in context of the facts, and it’s never simply a dismissal based on who they are.
FAIR is here to cut through the propaganda, the repeating of rumors, and the arguments that would often not make it through a freshman English writing class.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for that statement, there are also apologetic writings defending the Church that would also not pass that bar.
I have seen that in arguments related to Book of Mormon geography, race in the priesthood, and plural marriage.
All I can say is I hope the arguments get better on both sides, actually. 
But FAIR is here to strengthen testimonies. We recently had a donor who paid for a few people to travel to Europe for some conferences and firesides.
In Salzburg, we met a sister who had traveled all the way from Hungary to read our talks or to see our talks. She was frustrated that because of the language barrier it wasn’t available to many of her fellow Hungarians.
In Bulgaria, I met a man from Turkey who had many questions that were preventing him from joining the Church. He found FAIR, found his answers, and was baptized.
But we have a problem. FAIR is honestly made up of simply a few volunteers, backed up by several outsiders willing to give their expertise at our conferences.
People ask us to respond to questions, videos, and websites. We have a 10,000-page website that needs to be updated.
We have people who want us to do firesides or conferences in other areas.
So far, we’ve relied on faith and small donations to get us through.
As technology has become more and more complicated, we find that we need more resources to keep up.
Without people donating to us, we wouldn’t be able to keep up. So far, FAIR has been operating on a budget that’s less than the salary of one of the podcasters who attacks the Church.
Now granted, he’s one of the more famous podcasters—but his salary is more than our entire budget.
How can we hope to keep up?
Let me share with you this clip given by Elder Pearson at a previous FAIR conference:
“Independent voices are needed in reaching out to those among us who are struggling to find and sustain faith, and in responding to those who unfairly criticize, misrepresent, distort, and demean the Church, its history, doctrine, and leadership. More needs to be done to increase awareness of, access to, and confidence in these independent, trusted resources by Latter-day Saints and seekers of truth. These are valued, trusted resources, and they need more support. They need more financial support, among other things, given the enormity of the challenge. Good people of faith are going to have to think about what they want to use their resources to put against, and FAIR Mormon cannot possibly engage at the level they’re capable of without more financial resources.”
Okay, of course you’d expect a donation ad from me—but it’s true.
And he spoke also about—he also included other organizations that are represented at the conference here in his talk. 
So each year I finish my semester teaching students in accounting who are easily completing their homework—they understand the principles I’m teaching them. 
Then the new semester starts, and a new group of students stare blankly at me and act as if they’ve never heard the subject matter before. That’s because they haven’t heard it before, and I have to start over and teach the new class the same information from the very beginning.
The same is true with gospel learning and for evaluating critical arguments.
Each generation is a new group of students learning again why the gospel is true. And I hear it over and over again where people will have a question, and people will respond with, “Oh, that old thing—that’s already been discussed.”
No, it hasn’t been discussed—not with a new generation. It’s only been discussed with us older folks, I guess.
But there are a couple of differences with my students and with people with gospel questions and such.
First, even though I’m giving my students new information they have not heard before, it is really rare for them to say that since they haven’t heard it before, I must have been hiding it.
Secondly, unlike my students who typically go to class to learn from me, those struggling with gospel questions quickly turn to the internet and follow whosoever has a good video, regardless of their qualifications.
They’ve done studies with people who have a crisis of faith—do they first turn to the Church or their loved ones?
No. They usually first go to the internet and do their own research, not realizing that many of the online sources are not trustworthy.
I’m saddened when I see people leave the Church because of what they read or see on these deceptive websites.
How would you feel if you left the Church and then found out you were lied to by the person who is telling you the Church was lying?
So how do you avoid being led astray?
First, focus on using trusted sources.
Your first trusted source is the Church and professional Church historians. From there, you can expand your circle to include BYU Studies and other faithful resources like FAIR, Interpreter, and Scripture Central.
In all of that, be careful of anyone who claims to know more than the Church or claims that the Church has been deceived—that is a sure indication that something is wrong. 
Then we have the issue of your personal receptiveness to the true truth.
On the other hand:
Are you engaged in:
In short, with whom and what are you surrounding yourself?
It’s easy to get sidetracked on various criticisms of the Church.
Most of these issues we run into on social media or on the internet are simply distractions.
I can say that because most questions really come down to the question about the Book of Mormon.
If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
If he was a prophet, then the priesthood keys that the Lord said would never be taken again from the earth are still here, held by President Russell M. Nelson.
And this is the Church of Jesus Christ today.
Let me give you an example of a criticism that repeatedly comes up—but research provides answers for.
Archaeology—doesn’t archaeology prove the Book of Mormon as false?
Well, in 2019, Matt Roper, building on previous work done by archaeologist Dr. John Clark, examined many books claiming to prove the Book of Mormon false through archaeology.
He presented his results in a FAIR conference such as this one, and he identified every archaeological evidence listed against it. Then, he produced the following list of 200 items. 
Matt then looked at modern archaeology and found the claims that were supposed to prove the Book of Mormon false are now supported by archaeological evidence.
Where there is no archaeological evidence, he used red. Where there’s accepted archaeological evidence, he used green. And where there is evidence but still disagreement on it—or uncertainty on it—he used blue. 
The Book of Mormon was written in 1830, but in 2019, 81% of the things that were supposed to prove the Book of Mormon was a fake are either confirmed to be true or trending in the direction to be true.
Had Joseph Smith used the archaeological beliefs of his day to author the Book of Mormon, it would have been wrong.
Instead, people criticized the book for more than 190 years for things we now know to be true.
Unfortunately, on the internet, they’re still repeating a lot of those old claims.
To me, this shows if you have questions, in faith, answers will come. They may not come right away—as some of these criticisms have gone on for 190 years—but they do come. 
We do not talk about these things much in church. Knowing this information does not change our behavior.
The Church is trying to make us disciples of Jesus Christ and not necessarily scholars.
Being a scholar does not make you a better person—but if you want to study scholarship, the information is there. FAIR, Interpreter, Scripture Central, and other organizations are there to help you with those intellectual reasons to stay.
In April Conference 2022, President Russell M. Nelson gave a talk on spiritual momentum. He said we should learn about God and how He works.
He also said we should pray always and study our scriptures.
And then in a 2022 devotional, President Nelson said that:
“If you have questions—and I hope you do—seek answers with a fervent desire to believe. Learn all you can about the gospel, and be sure to turn to truth-filled sources for guidance.”
As you go through your life, you will hear good things and bad things about the Church—that is the nature of social media, and that’s the nature of the internet.
But know that I have spent many years reading criticisms of the Church. My testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel is stronger today than it has ever been.
My anchor is Jesus Christ and the book that testifies of Him—the Book of Mormon.
Living the principle is not always easy, but if we do, we will be blessed.
So one more thought—what do we do if we have family or friends who leave the Church, or people who study the gospel and don’t join?
My experience says you should love them.
You do not try to convince them they’re wrong—I’m sure you’ve seen how well that works in politics. It doesn’t. 
Remember, life is eternal, so change may come for them sometime later—perhaps not even in this life.
We are eternal beings in temporal bodies, but we can still hold on to the truthfulness of the gospel.
To love others, we do not have to agree with them.
We can know it is true, and we can love our neighbor and our family as Jesus commanded us to do. 
So I want to point out one more thing—in the Church Gospel Library app, if you pull up your Gospel Library app, they’ve created a new section to give additional guidance to you if you’re struggling with questions yourself or if you’re trying to help someone struggling with questions.
What you don’t want to do is get angry with them or drive them away—you want to love them, listen to them, and trust in the Lord.
I know that Jesus is the Christ. He is my Savior. He loves us and wants the best for us.
He’s given us the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I know the Book of Mormon is true, and this is His Church.
And I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
In his October 2025 General Conference address, “And Now I See,” Jeffrey R. Holland teaches that spiritual clarity often comes gradually as we continue forward in faith.
He draws on the Savior’s healing of the blind man, where something as simple as clay made from dust and spittle became the means of a miracle. What may have seemed ordinary or even unexpected became, in the Lord’s hands, the path to sight. [Read more…] about And Now I See
In his October 2025 General Conference address, “The Atoning Love of Jesus Christ,” Neil L. Andersen testifies that the Savior’s Atonement is not only central to God’s plan, but personally powerful in every life.
He teaches that both forgiveness and healing are found through Jesus Christ, no matter the depth of sin or suffering. [Read more…] about The Atoning Love of Jesus Christ
In his October 2025 General Conference address, “Humble Souls at Altars Kneel,” Jeremy R. Jaggi teaches that sacred altars, whether the sacrament table, temple altars, or the quiet places of personal prayer, represent moments when we bind ourselves to Jesus Christ through covenant devotion.
He explains that these sacred acts are not symbolic gestures alone. They connect disciples directly to the Savior’s power and grace. [Read more…] about Humble Souls at Altars Kneel
In his October 2025 General Conference address, “That All May Be Edified,” Chad H. Webb teaches that gospel teaching and learning are meant to do more than convey information. When centered on Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost, they are meant to shape discipleship over a lifetime. [Read more…] about That All May Be Edified
