Why does the church of latter day saints not recognize the obvious sin of the angel Moroni according to the account of Joseph Smith's own words?

Question

While having a conversation with a member of the Latter day saints. I did some independent research regarding their official account of the origin of their Faith. I did not see any similar question, if there is one I do apologize.

Forgive the long build up to my question, it helps the question be properly understood. It is down below in large friendly letters. :)

I found this in "Joseph Smith's History" on a very well designed website, that would display explanations for certain words and even links to specific Bible verses involved.

During my reading of the first hand account of events, I intentionally did not bother with any historical details nor look up things to bias my original opinion of the text.

---

The account does not seem to show that Joseph did anything to confirm that his vision was from God and not from the evil one.

I come from an eastern orthodox perspective and it seems that Joseph neglected (perhaps due to his age) 2 out of the 3 things we are supposed to do when confronted by visions of supernatural nature.

1. Challenging the messenger, demons can perfectly imitate even divine figures and loved ones. Even various Orthodox saints were deceived by visions where demons impersonated Christ, saints, or similar. We are supposed to challenge them, who sent them, etc. (Example St. Issac of the caves was tricked into worshiping a demon that another one called Christ)

2. Test the message itself, it should align with scripture if it is from God. (Remember this for the question at the end)

3. Seek guidance from a spiritual leader.

---

These are the issues (minor and major) that I see from reading it.

1. It seems odd that the vision starts with "overpowering darkness" preventing him from speaking. But that doesn't really pose an issue, especially if Joseph did become freed by calling out to God.

2. In the vision, one being points to the other and says "this is my son", who's son? Lucifer and God both will say that they have a son. The orthodox church accounts of visions have many instances where one demon calls another "Christ" to deceive the recipient.

3. The angel Moroni, according to Joseph misquotes scripture by changing verses entirely. This should have been a clear sign that it was false. The "angel" versions are significantly different.

4. Joseph told pastors of his vision, but the pastors he told flatly refused to acknowledge that visions could even occur. (Making it regrettably impossible for him to seek spiritual guidance)

---

My main question is this focused on my 3rd objection above.

"According to the account Joseph as a young man knew the scriptures, despite this he allowed an angel that he knew changed a text from the Bible to guide him. How do members of the church of latter day saints reconcile for this direct sin performed by the angel Moroni?

36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Compare with: "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1 or Malachi 3:19)

---

38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Compare with: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:" (Malachi 4:5 or Malachi 3:24)

---

Changing verses is a sin, and the angel Moroni did it, and Joseph noticed and recorded it officially.

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

I understand the LDS response to this already, if the first vision and angel are valid from God, then there is no issue. But the angel sinned according to the account, by changing the scriptures...

We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2).

“Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

“The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever” (Isaiah 40:8).

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35)

Answer 1

Well first of all there is no deception here. Joseph noticed scripture was cited differently (I mean, it's hard not to when you can look it up later), and the Angel unapologetically did to make a certain point.

Notably, there are several different versions of this scripture:

• KJV
• the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi 25 (the same as KJV, except for verse 2 which reads Son of Righteousness instead of Sun of Righteousness)
• the version from Moroni
• as far as I can tell, no significant change to Malachi was done in the JST, at least none that ended up in our study help.

So, the Book of Mormon confirms the reading of the KJV Old Testament for the most part, and Joseph didn't seem to feel it was necessary to change anything in the JST. Meaning Moroni gave here an interpretation of sorts to make a certain point more clear. It does not replace the one in the Bible at all. I guess one could call this new revelation, closely based on some existing scripture. Given the Book of Mormon, we cannot conclude that the reason for "misciting" is that the text is wrong.

Answer 2

Your question seems to cover quite a bit (2 visitations/spiritual experiences), I'd like to address a few points in order before making it to your main question.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe similarly when confronted with supposed Heavenly messengers/angels.

1. D&C 129 covers what to do (this revelation was received in 1843, several years after said revelation. Joseph Smith at the time was relatively young and still learning at this time)

   I will also note Joseph Smith could've tested them and just not recorded this happening. The test in D&C 129 isn't the only way to test, just a reliable one. Moses 1:13-14 makes reference of divine glory.

2. LDS also agree with this, Elder Dale G Renlund, A Framework for Personal Revelation is a recent talk that points this out

3. This point also is a belief of the LDS generally, however the revelation (the first vision) in question was that (v19):

   I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

   So there wasn't really a spiritual leader Joseph could go to

---

Addressing the issues:

1. (about first vision, not Moroni's visit) It shouldn't seem to weird if the claims Joseph Smith makes are true. If Joseph Smith is about to restore the church on the earth after years of apostasy, Satan would oppose Joseph Smith at every turn

2. (also about first vision, not Moroni's visit) The being pointing to the other is God and he says, 'This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!', so the other being is Jesus Christ. LDS doctrine does not mention Lucifer having a physical body or a son

3. As you point out later, Joseph sees/hears the differences and notes the difference, it probably wasn't a misquote. The LDS also don't believe the bible to be infallible of mistakes. In Article of Faith 8

   8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

   (JST, Joseph Smith Translation has other changes)

   _{I don't think the meaning was very different, to me the difference clarifies the meaning}

4. See very first point 3. No one is restricted from spiritual guidance/having prayers answered

---

You mention:

if the first vision and angel are valid from God, then there is no issue

so I feel like you understand the LDS viewpoint. Who else would be able to clarify the bible/word of God than God himself or one of His messengers/angels? A similar scripture 'change' happens in the New Testament as well in Luke 4:18-19 vs Isaiah 61:1-2

2 Cor 4:2 The differences don't distort, they clarify. (I'm going to lunch vs I'm going to lunch at a restaurant; same message, but more detailed/clearer in the second one about what I'm doing)

Psalm 119:89 I think you are assuming that because the Bible has God's word that the Bible is His Word completely. The Bible as we know it wasn't around in the time of Psalms. Scripture/revelation came later.

Isaiah 40:8 His word endures forever, doesn't mean it endures forever in scripture or the scripture that we/mankind have

Matthew 24:35 see above, also we know there are words of Jesus that aren't recorded in the Bible (John 20:30 is first example), doesn't mean they passed away just that they aren't recorded in the Bible

---

Moroni Demon?

In regards to claims that maybe Joseph Smith was deceived by a demon seems more unlikely when you take into account other times Angel Moroni visited other people, and never denied previous visits/messages.

For example the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon were visited by the angel Moroni (also Mary Whitmer). ^{1, 2} Following similar logic, other prophets/apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have at least made claims of having been visited by Jesus Christ in vision, dreams, or some unspecified manner and none have had Moroni's visit/message denied.³

This now becomes a problem of rejecting multiple accounts by multiple witnesses at various times. Yes multiple people can be deceived, but I'd argue it gets harder. You can also make similar arguments about any spiritual experience of anyone anytime something contradicts one's own experience/beliefs and this won't get any where. None of the witnesses have gone back on their accounts. They all believed to have experienced what they did. The 3 witnesses even left the church (2 returned) but still didn't reject/deny their experience.

Demon's physical?

There are no clear examples of demons having physical form in the scripture. I also can't find non-LDS writings saying Demons have physical human shape/form. There are accounts of demons possessing people and appearing in non-human appearance but not just materializing physically.⁴

It seems like the closest claim is Satan appearing as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14)⁵ or maybe when Paul says (Gal 1:8)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

But as the LDS claim is to be a restoration, this claim doesn't contradict anything to LDS beliefs/doctrine, as our doctrine/gospel is the same gospel from the Church at Christ's time.

No "spiritual leader" I mean... how convenient that would be for the deceiver to negate all sources of aid

Just re-iterating from comments it wasn't really convenient, as not only was Joseph Smith severely persecuted but many early saints were as well. ⁶

I'd also be careful with this line of argument as a very similar situation occurred when Christ started his ministry. Christ called out the religious leaders at the time (Matthew 23-27). Rejecting religious leaders is not convenient or an argument for denying a message. Christ was persecuted for his statements by religious leaders, but he relied on prophecy/revelation and scripture. I believe Joseph Smith did too.

_{1 Who saw the gold plates besides Joseph Smith, Jan 2024}

_{2 Moroni Appeared to 17 Different People, Living Heritage Tours, Nov 2015}

_{3 8 Divine Accounts of Prophets and Apostles Seeing the Savior, LDS Living, Aug 2019}

_{4 Can Demons Materialize in Human or Animal Form?, Blue Letter Bible; Can Demons Appear in Human Form Like Angels? (basically no evidence)}

_{5 What does it mean that Satan masquerades as an angel of light?}

_{6 Trials and Persecution, Joseph Smith Persecution, Peace and Violence Among 19th Century Latter-day Saints ... there are plenty of sources for this topic}

Answer 3

This "sin" only makes sense if you take as an unspoken premise the conclusion you wish to prove, which is the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

Fact: Moroni cited various verses.

Fact: The verses read differently than in modern Bibles.

Conclusion: The verses have been changed somewhere along the line, which is a sin.

Unspoken premise: The one who changed them was Moroni, and not anyone in the millennia-long chain of custody from the original writers to Joseph Smith.

Conclusion: Therefore, Moroni was the one who changed them, and committed sin by so doing.

This unspoken premise is explicitly rejected by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, just as it is by modern scholarship. The Church recognizes that someone sinned along the way, and wishes to help to rectify that by restoring that which was lost, in its original purity.

Answer 4

This post will respond to the primary objection in the OP - should we conclude that Moroni's message was demonic because he applied changes to Biblical verses in quoting them?

That the answer to this question is "no" will be established by two distinct reductio ad absurdum arguments. Moroni's quotation of Biblical verses, on its own, provides no basis to conclude that he was clearly a messenger from God or clearly a messenger from the devil.

---

Reductive Argument #1--quotations by Biblical authors

If we conclude that Moroni is demonic on the basis of his quoting scriptural passages with variations in the text, we're going to have some serious problems on our hands.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Peter all quote the Old Testament with variations in the text. Are they all demonic?

A handful (of many!) examples include:

• Matthew 1:23 & Isaiah 7:14 (if you don't think this one is controversial, ask our friends at Mi Yodeya -- it may be the most oft-challenged Biblical quotation of all time. I'm not saying Matthew is wrong; I'm just pointing out that it isn't always so clear cut as we might like)
• Matthew 8:17 & Isaiah 53:4
• Matthew 21:16 & Psalm 8:2
• Mark 1:2-3 & Malachi 3:1
• Luke 4:18-19 & Isaiah 61:1-2
• John 1:23 & Isaiah 40:3
• Ephesians 4:26 & Psalm 4:4
• James 4:6 & Proverbs 3:34
• 1 Peter 1:24 & Isaiah 40:6
• There are literally hundreds more. It would be a shame if we discarded as demonic the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Peter because they quote the Old Testament with variations in the text.

We could dig even further into the question of why most Christians rely on the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Old Testament, when most New Testament quotations of the Old Testament come from the Septuagint (LXX). Is it the NT authors or modern Christians who are using an edited version of the text? The MT and the LXX have thousands of differences between them. Is the MT or the LXX the authoritative version that should not be changed?

We've already lost all the New Testament authors except Jude, and the problem just keeps getting worse:

• Daniel paraphrases Jeremiah but introduces variation in the text. I guess we have to discard Daniel.
• Micah paraphrases Jeremiah but introduces variation in the text. Good-bye Micah.
• Isaiah paraphrases Hosea but introduces variation in the text. Time to reject Isaiah.
• 1 & 2 Chronicles quote the books of Samuel & Kings, but introduce variations in the text. 2 more books gone.
• We can keep doing this until almost nothing is left...

If we're going to declare everything after the Torah to be demonic, is it time for us all to become Saduccees?

the Samaritans and Sadducees...receive the books of Moses alone (Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.49)

But let's keep going...

• Deuteronomy heavily quotes & paraphrases from the preceding books of the Torah, but introduces variations in the text
• Leviticus & Numbers paraphrase Exodus, but introduce variations in the text
• Exodus paraphrases Genesis, but introduces variations in the text
• Even within Genesis itself there are stories recounted more than once, and the later renditions introduce variations (e.g. Gen. 1 vs Gen. 2, Gen. 15 vs. Gen. 17, Gen. 32 vs. Gen. 35, etc.). Whether we opt for the documentary hypothesis, toledoths, or some other source material available to Moses, we have later scriptural authors amending the words of earlier scriptural authors.

Uh-oh. We just wiped out darn close to the entire Bible.

If we make the objective claim that changing verses is a sin, and is evidence of a demonic message, we discard almost the entirety of the Bible as a demonic work. That's a hefty price to pay to reject Moroni. By reductio ad absurdum I reject this argument.

(if one makes a subjective claim that there's some de minimus threshold that separates "acceptable paraphrase" from "unacceptable midrash" it's just that...a subjective claim open to all manner of interpretation. The absence of a clear boundary destroys the utility of such a claim. The Biblical text itself establishes no such boundary for midrash, which is unsurprising given the propensity of Biblical authors to paraphrase the words of earlier Biblical authors, with all manner of different levels of "paraphrase")

--

Reductive Argument #2--chronology

The oft-cited passages in Deut. 4:2 and Revelation 22:18-19 do not condemn additional authoritative general revelation, nor do they unilaterally pronounce anathemas on all who expand upon prior revelation. This can be established multiple ways, we'll focus here on just 3:

• The Bible, as a collection of 66/73 books, did not exist when Deuteronomy or Revelation were written. The "book" in Rev. 22:18-19 refers to the book of Revelation.
• Revelation probably wasn't the last book of the Bible to be completed. Although Johannine chronology is a challenging and imprecise subject, there is a wealth of scholarship spanning many generations suggesting that 2 John, 3 John, and John's Gospel were completed after the book of Revelation. Did John pronounce woes upon those who offer additional scripture and then produce additional scripture himself?
• If Deut. 4:2 precludes future scripture (including future scripture expanding upon past scripture), we can tear out everything in our Bibles after the Torah. There we go again....

--

Conclusion

I propose that we do not dismiss the Bible as a collection of demonic texts. Christians widely accept that a later scriptural author could, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, interpret and/or expand upon prior scriptural writings, with God's approval. And therein lies the rub. This is what Latter-day Saints believe about modern revelation as well.

Malachi's prophecy about Elijah is one of the very few passages found in all 4 of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

• The Bible (see Malachi 4:5-6)
• The Book of Mormon (see 3 Nephi 25:4-6)
• The Doctrine & Covenants (see D&C 2:1-3)
• The Pearl of Great Price (see JSH 1:38-39)

In each case there is slight variation. To a Latter-day Saint who already believes in modern revelation on separate grounds, this shows that God has more to tell us on this subject. He is perfectly capable of expanding upon the original statement given through Malachi.

One who does not already believe in modern revelation on separate grounds would, of course, not come to this conclusion. But claiming that Moroni's message is not from God - on the basis of a demonic quotations argument - which only works if built on the premise that Moroni wasn't authorized by God, is a textbook example of the fallacy of begging the question.

Latter-day Saints believe in gaining a testimony through the Holy Ghost, which testimony can include the truth of Moroni's mission and message. Many non-Latter-day Saints reject Moroni for other reasons. But Moroni's quotations of the Bible do nothing to move the needle either way. They may reinforce what one already believes, but building a belief for or against Moroni on the basis of these quotations is entirely circular.

No Latter-day Saint gains a testimony by arguing inductively that the message of the Restoration must be true because Moroni is so good at quoting the Bible. On the contrary, we put Moroni's promise to the test to learn truth the same way Peter did in Matthew 16: by revelation from our Father in Heaven.

Moroni gave this promise:

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:4-5)

This promise worked for me.

---

^{Disclaimer: these thoughts are the product of my own study and do not constitute official statements by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}