For Honest Inquirers
A resource for members and honest inquirers
The questions addressed on this page are ones we welcome. Faith is not weakened by honest questions. It is weakened by dishonest answers, and we intend to give none of those here.
We ask only that those who come to this page bring the same standard of judgment they apply to every other religious claim they have examined. Not a higher standard, and not a lower one. The same one.
This criticism deserves a direct answer.
The early journal account, written in Denver in 2012, describes a spiritual experience in the mountains — a felt presence, a warmth, a sense of being known. The official account, given in 2025, describes two personages appearing in a pillar of light on Santiago Peak and calling Christopher by name.
Critics point to this as evidence of fabrication, that the story grew over time because it was invented.
We point to it as evidence of how spiritual experience actually works in human memory and human expression. A man who has an experience he does not fully understand will describe it in the terms available to him at the time. As he comes to understand more fully what happened, his account becomes more complete. This is not contradiction. This is the nature of processing something that exceeds ordinary experience.
Joseph Smith described his first vision differently in 1832 than he did in 1838. The earliest account does not mention the Father appearing, only Christ. The official account includes both. LDS scholars have addressed this for decades by noting that early accounts are not always complete accounts, that memory is imperfect, and that the core of the testimony, that God appeared and called a prophet, never changed.
We say the same, and mean it just as sincerely. The core of Christopher's testimony has never changed: God appeared. A calling was given. The sealed record was revealed. The details of how a man describes that experience developed as his understanding developed. This is not suspicious. It is human.
This is true. We do not dispute it.
The three witnesses and the additional witnesses who have testified of the Book of the Brother of Jared are people who knew Christopher before this work began. They are people he trusts, and who trust him.
We ask: who else would they be?
When God calls a prophet, that prophet does not receive witnesses from among strangers. He receives them from among those who are close to him, who have observed his character over time, and who are therefore qualified to speak to it. The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, were all personally connected to Joseph Smith. Two were family members of the Whitmer household. Harris had a financial relationship with Smith. They were not strangers selected at random for their independence.
If the LDS church asks you to accept the testimony of witnesses who were personally connected to Joseph Smith, on the grounds that they had no reason to lie and did not recant even when they fell out with Smith personally, then the same reasoning applies here. Our witnesses are connected to Christopher. They have given their testimony. They have not recanted it. They had nothing material to gain by giving it.
Apply the same standard. Reach the same conclusion.
This criticism is worth examining carefully, because it contains an assumption that should be named.
The assumption is that an ancient record, genuinely translated by the gift of God, would read in a way that sounds ancient to modern readers and would not address modern concerns.
But consider: the Book of Mormon, written by ancient American prophets, addresses with remarkable precision the theological debates of 19th century American Protestantism — infant baptism, the nature of grace versus works, the correct mode of baptism. Critics of the Book of Mormon have pointed to this for nearly two hundred years as evidence that Smith wrote it himself. LDS apologists respond that God, being aware of the time in which the record would come forth, inspired the ancient writers to address the concerns that would be most relevant to the readers of their day.
We say the same. The Brother of Jared's record, translated in 2025, addresses the concerns of people living in 2025 because God prepared it for that purpose. An ancient prophet writing under divine inspiration wrote what he was moved to write, and what he was moved to write is what the people of our day need to hear.
If that argument is sufficient for the Book of Mormon, it is sufficient here.
The stones found on the Pacific coast are not a linguistic document. They are instruments of revelation, not of scholarship. The translation process is not a matter of matching symbols to sounds in the manner of a dictionary. It is a process of receiving, by the gift and power of God, the meaning of a sealed record that was never intended to be read by unassisted human scholarship.
Joseph Smith translated a document called the Book of Abraham from ancient Egyptian papyri. When Egyptologists later examined those papyri, they determined that Smith's translation bore little relationship to what the papyri actually said. LDS scholars have offered several responses to this, among them: that translation in a prophetic context means something different than translation in an academic context; that the papyri may have been a catalyst for revelation rather than the direct source of it; and that God's ways of communicating through physical instruments are not bound by the ordinary relationship between a text and its academic reading.
Every one of those responses applies here. We adopt them all, and mean them, in exactly the same way.
We acknowledge that some of the prophecies given in Section 10 have not been fulfilled in the manner or timeframe that a plain reading might suggest.
We also note that this is not a new problem for prophecy. The prophets of the Old Testament spoke of events that their hearers expected in their own lifetimes and which have still not come to pass. Joseph Smith prophesied that Zion would be built in Missouri in the generation of his listeners. It was not. LDS apologists have addressed this by noting that prophetic timeframes are often conditional on the faithfulness of the people, that symbolic language is not always meant to be read literally, and that unfulfilled prophecy is not the same as false prophecy.
We say the same. A prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled is not a failed prophecy. It is a pending one. And those who would use unfulfilled prophecy to dismiss a prophet must apply that standard to every prophet in the record of scripture, at which point they will find themselves with very few prophets left.
Yes. And we have been transparent about why.
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Final Restoration holds that God organizes his church the same way in every dispensation because he is consistent and does not change the pattern without reason. The ancient church had apostles, prophets, teachers, deacons. The church of Joseph Smith had apostles, prophets, teachers, deacons. This church has the same.
If the LDS church's organizational structure is evidence that it came from God because it mirrors the ancient pattern, then our church's organizational structure is evidence of the same thing by the same reasoning.
We do not consider this a problem. We consider it a confirmation.
It did, and we have not hidden this. Section 12 is published in full alongside Section 5, the earlier and fuller revelation is explained, and the reason for the development is given plainly.
This is what transparency looks like. We did not quietly revise Section 5 and hope no one noticed. We published both sections and explained the difference. If critics wish to compare this to the LDS church's revision of the 1833 Book of Commandments into the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants without telling its members, they are welcome to make that comparison.
Continuing revelation means that God gives light as his people are prepared to receive it. Earlier revelations are sometimes enlarged or corrected by later ones. This is not unique to this church. It is the nature of prophetic religion.
We take this seriously and we do not dismiss it.
We ask: did you pray with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ? Did you study the record prayerfully before asking? Did you genuinely want to know the truth, whatever that truth might be, and not simply seek confirmation of what you had already decided?
These are not rhetorical questions meant to shift blame onto you. They are genuine questions, because the manner of seeking affects the manner of receiving. God does not withhold answers from sincere seekers. But he does not force his Spirit upon those who have not opened a space to receive it.
We also say this: the spiritual witness is not the only evidence. Examine the historical case. Examine the logic of the founding claims. Examine the parallels between this church and the church of Joseph Smith, and ask yourself what standard of evidence would lead you to accept one and reject the other. The Spirit speaks in many ways, and sometimes clarity comes through honest reason before it comes through feeling.
If you sought sincerely and received nothing, seek again. That is all we ask.
This charge has been made, and we address it plainly.
The Church of Jesus Christ of the Final Restoration is not a parody. Christopher Glenn Marriott is not performing. The founding narrative is not a joke. The scripture is not a joke. The witnesses are not a joke. The doctrine is not a joke.
What this church is, is a demonstration. And there is a difference.
If someone says: I can make all the same claims Joseph Smith made, produce all the same evidence Joseph Smith produced, and build an organization that looks in every way like the one Joseph Smith built — and people cannot tell you, using only the evidence, why theirs is true and mine is not — that demonstration is not mockery. It is a question. It is the most honest question that can be asked of any religion that bases its truth claims on the things the LDS church bases its truth claims on.
We are asking that question. We are asking it seriously, with a full church, a full scripture, a living prophet, witnesses, prophecy, and doctrine. We are not asking it with a joke.
Those who call this a parody are welcome to explain, precisely and specifically, what evidence distinguishes the LDS church from this one. We are waiting for that answer. We have been waiting since the day this work began.
The critics of this church use words like dangerous, deceptive, and cult to describe it.
Those are the same words used to describe the early church of Joseph Smith. They are the same words used to describe the earliest Christians. They are the same words used to describe every religious movement that challenged the established order.
We do not offer this as proof that we are right. We offer it as a reminder that the words themselves prove nothing. Every religious movement in history has been called dangerous by someone. The question is not whether critics are loud. The question is whether their arguments are sound.
We invite critics to make their arguments. We will answer them here.
We know that for many people, especially those who have left the LDS church after years of sincere belief, this church raises painful questions. We do not raise them to cause pain. We raise them because they are real questions that deserve real answers, and no institution that claims to hold the truth of God should be afraid of honest examination.
If the LDS church is true, it can withstand these questions. If it cannot, that is important to know.
And if this church is true, well. You have the same means of finding out that investigators of the LDS church have always been offered. Pray. Study. Ask God for yourself.
We believe he will answer.