More on WHO’s Controversial “Standards For Sexuality Education in Europe” Report

 

Following my earlier blog post in which I had drawn attention to a Twitter thread exposing the hand of the UN, and its affiliated agencies such as WHO, UNICEF etc. in drawing up guidelines for the sexualization, grooming, and exploitation of little children in schools across the world; I searched the Internet a bit more, and found lots more information about it online. One such example is the following article by Chris Brooke, published in the British Newspaper the Daily Mail, on 14 May 2023, revealing concern expressed by some government officials in the UK about this Standards For Sexuality Education in Europe report (PDF here), issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). The complete Daily Mail article, including images and links etc., can be seen on their website here. The following is a partial text of the article, excluding the images and links:

“The World Health Organisation has been urged to withdraw ‘disturbing’ guidance to schools about ‘sexuality education’ for young children. 

“Children under four should ‘ask questions about sexuality’ and ‘explore gender identities,’ according to a detailed WHO report aimed at policy makers across Europe. 

“The official guidance also supports providing information to children under four about ‘enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation.’ 

“And they should also learn skills to ‘gain an awareness of gender identity.’ 

“The same WHO report states children aged between four and six years should ‘talk about sexual matters’ and ‘consolidate their gender identity.’ 

“The controversial 68-page report, Standards For Sexuality Education in Europe was first published in 2010 and campaign groups concerned about the sexualisation of very young children want it banned for fear of influencing official sex education policy. 

“The document was also cited in a report consulted by Welsh ministers who last year introduced a mandatory sexual education syllabus to schools in Wales, although the Welsh Government stressed it did not ‘endorse’ the WHO guidance. 

“Laura Anne Jones, the Tory shadow minister for education in Wales, said the WHO needs to ‘rescind the advice immediately’. 

“Ms Jones also called for the Welsh government to ‘distance themselves’ from the ‘frankly disturbing’ WHO guidance. 

“She told the Telegraph: ‘We must stop this pushing of harmful gender ideology into sex education in Wales and the UK, with immediate effect.’ 

“Tanya Carter, of the campaign group Safe Schools Alliance, has demanded an ‘urgent enquiry’ into whether there is a link between ‘RSE curriculum in this country’ and sexual education guidance issued by UN organisations such as the WHO and UNESCO. 

“Commenting on sexuality education, the Alliance recently warned: ‘We find it extremely concerning that the UN and WHO are promoting an approach that is experimental, unscientific, and appears to be aligned to the work of unethical individuals and organisations, including those promoting the acceptance of paedophilia. 

“‘We call upon them to revise their standards to align with a safeguarding-first approach that protects children while allowing them to develop a healthy and age-appropriate understanding of sex.’

“A WHO spokesman said it stands by its guidance. ‘Our guidelines reflect established psychological facts based on decades of research.’ 

“The document asserts that children embark on sexual education from birth. 

“It reads: ‘From birth, babies learn the value and pleasure of bodily contact, warmth and intimacy. Soon after that, they learn what is ‘clean’ and what is ‘dirty’.’ Adding: ‘In other words, they are engaging in sexuality education.’ 

“A Government spokesperson said: ‘The Government does not recognise this WHO guidance and we don’t agree with its recommendations. We have not distributed or promoted it to schools.

“‘We offer our own guidance to help schools to teach children and young people about relationships and health.”

Is God Sorry That He Can’t Save Everyone?

 

The answer evidently is yes! I found the above short clip from James White, but wasn’t able to find the original video from which it was taken to be able to link to it. It is a short, low res, one minute clip, in which he is advocating and justifying the typical Calvinistic doctrine of divine predestination and predetermination to salvation or damnation—thus denying human freewill. Here is the transcript:

“Do you really want a God who is doing the best he can, but he is going to fail over, and over, and over again? I mean, if he really is trying to save every person equally, then doesn’t that mean in heaven, that God is going to be extremely disappointed with his results? I mean, think about it, that would basically mean God is good to have to be standing on the parapets of hell, going, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry; I tried, I tried my best! Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we did our absolute best for you!’ Do you see that picture in Revelation anywhere? I don’t see a picture in Revelation anywhere. I hear about God’s justice, and I hear about the recognition of the fact he is accomplishing his purposes; but I don’t get the idea that God is going to be eternally bummed at how many people he wasn’t able to get saved.”

The answer to that is, Yes! I do find exactly that picture in the Bible. Here is one:

Matthew 23:

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Luke 13:

34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Luke 19:

41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city [of Jerusalem], and wept over it,

42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

The problem was not with God’s inability or unwillingness to save them. God was both willing and able to save them. But they had the choice. The problem was with their unwillingness to receive salvation from God; not with God’s inability or unwillingness to provide it for them. Here is another, from the Old Testament this time:

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return [repent] from his [evil] ways, and live?

• • •

31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his [evil] way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

So both the OT and NT agree on this one. God does indeed weep and mourn over the loss of the damned—not due to his unwillingness or inability to save them, but because of their unwillingness to receive salvation from him. Mankind are not zombies, deprived of freewill, as the abominable heresy of Calvinism makes them out to be. They are not robots, automatons, puppets on a string. They have God given freedom to choose between good and evil, right or wrong; to obey God or not to—and be rewarded or punished accordingly. So the bottom line is that Calvinism is unbiblical, heretical, and false. It is a damnable heresy; and those who advocate it, knowing full well that it is unbiblical, heretical, and false, will have to answer for it on judgment day.

A Disturbing Thread on Twitter

 

A very disturbing thread on Twitter, Link. It is a long thread, made up of around 66 tweets, packed with images, documentation, and evidence. It can also be viewed more conveniently in the “thread reader app” Link. When viewed in the thread reader (ignoring the ads), the thread appears as a single file, which can then be copied and pasted into a word processor or document reader, preserving all the text, images, and links etc., in case the thread at some point is deleted. The video in it can be downloaded separately. But I checked the documentation online, and it seems to be accurate. And the content of it is very disturbing indeed. If what it says is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), then we are heading for a divine judgment and disaster unheard of since the days of Noah.

James White Getting Desperate!

 

James White has just put out his latest video titled, “The Changing World of Mormonism,” in which he attacks or criticizes the Church, accusing them of changing their beliefs and doctrines. At around 14:45 minutes into the video he continues as follows (skipping some digressions in the interest of brevity):

“This is a book called … Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie and … it is organized alphabetically: so here is: ‘justice,’ ‘King James Version of the Bible,’ ‘Melchizedek Priesthood,’ ‘plural marriage,’ ‘plurality of gods,’ ‘righteousness,’ ‘70s,’ ‘solemnity,’ ‘slothfulness,’ ‘spirit world,’ … so anything you want to look up — Bruce R. McConkie was one of the 12 Apostles. And if you are really going to believe LDS teaching, then he has the same level of authority as a Paul, or a Peter (now you know, they might argue about First Presidencies, and stuff like that I suppose — there is certainly nothing about that in the New Testament). But anyway, here is an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he writes a book called Mormon Doctrine — now one of the things I remember when I first started dealing with Mormonism, and that was the first subject that — I mean that is why Alpha & Omega was started. When Alpha & Omega Ministries was started, we had one goal, and that was to reach out to the LDS people. And we … started going out to the Easter pageant early on, started going to Salt Lake City early on … anyway, and so here was McConkie, and here was clarity of expression, authority — at least when you are dealing with them — at least you are dealing with the Mormons … there was clarity in dealing with Mormonism at that time. And I remember shortly after he died — I forget what year that was, I should have looked it up; but shortly after he died, Bruce R. McConkie, I started running into missionaries who would disagree with what he had said; or said, ‘We don’t really know about that.’ ‘Well, Apostle McConkie said!’ ‘Well, but he is just an apostle!’ And I was like, ‘Wow, that was fast! How did that happen?’”

He has got all of that badly wrong! Bruce R. McConkie published his book, Mormon Doctrine, in 1958, long before he was called to be an Apostle in 1972; and his book was heavily criticized and objected to by the leadership of the Church soon after it was published, and long before he was called to be an Apostle. The following quote is from an article I found on Wikipedia about his book:

“Church leaders were surprised by its publication since he had not asked permission, and was not asked to develop such a work. They responded that while they applauded the attempt of the book to fill a need, it used a harsh tone. Apostle Mark E. Petersen said it was ‘full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation.’

“On January 5, 1959, apostle Marion G. Romney was assigned by church president David O. McKay to read and report on the book. His report was delivered on January 28, which mainly ‘dealt with Elder McConkie’s usage of forceful, blunt language; some strongly worded statements about ambiguous doctrine and matters of opinion; and the overall authoritative tone throughout the book, though in general Romney had a high regard for Mormon Doctrine and felt it filled an evident need remarkably well.’ The report concluded that ‘notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the church on ‘Mormon Doctrine’.’

“Petersen ‘gave McKay an oral report in which he recommended 1,067 corrections’ to the book.

“Nearly a year later, after meeting to discuss the book, the January 8, 1960 office notes of McKay reflect:

“‘We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition.’

“McKay called Joseph Fielding Smith on January 27, 1960, to inform him of the decision to ban further publication of the book:

“[McKay] then said: ‘Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie’s book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors ... are corrected.’ Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, ‘That is the best thing to do.’” Link

All of that happened long before Bruce R. McConkie was called to be an Apostle in the Church. James White then continues with his criticism as follows:

“And when I was grabbing these books today, I thought you know, when we used to go up Salt Lake City to the General Conference, we would go to the LDS bookstore in downtown Salt Lake City, because it was huge. I think it had two levels, if I recall correctly … but the section where they had the doctrinals, that was huge, it was massive and … I was up there a few years ago, and … I walk in, it is a third of the size it once was and … the book section was embarrassing, absolutely embarrassing. But one thing I noted: Nothing by Bruce R. McConkie — well there is no Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie … so I looked up today before the program started, I looked up … and interestingly enough, I ran across a quote Sandra Tanner was interviewed, when the announcement was made that they were taking the book out of print, and Sandra said the following: ‘I believe the main reason McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide …’ If the LDS Church felt Mormon Doctrine presented a faulty compilation of their doctrines, why haven’t they issued an authorized compendium of their beliefs?”

The answer to that is that they have. It is called the Standard Works, the name we commonly give to the scriptural canon of the Church, consisting of The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. That constitutes the scriptural canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is where the theology and doctrine of the Church is enshrined. That has been the general consensus of the inspired leadership of the Church:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said; if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203–4.)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve, and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973.)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969, p. 13.)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. These have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (July 24, 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world … to be satisfied with anything I do [or say], unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied … Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:5.).

And from the prophet Joseph Smith himself we have the following interesting quotes:

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book, 1976. p. 194)

“Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.” (p. 71)

So the bottom line is that the scriptural canon of the Church, the Standard Works, is the ultimate, authoritative source of Church doctrine. Anything that deviates from that, regardless of its source, is not Church doctrine. The Church does indeed have the power and authority to receive revelation, and add to the scriptural canon; but until it does, the existing canon remains the ultimate, unique, and authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine. James White then continues his criticism as follows:

“Mormons often say to me, ‘That is not official Doctrine,’ as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism? You would think with the constant claim on the part of the Church to Latter-day revelation, that you would have a clear and consistent statement, an inspired Systematic Theology.”

Where is the official, “inspired Systematic Theology” of Protestantism? I don’t know of any. In Protestantism, it is all about sola scriptura; but when it comes to Mormonism, it has to be an “inspired Systematic Theology!” Notice the double standards! Go figure! He then continues as follows:

“It is sort of like when Rome says, ‘Well, we get to interpret what the Bible teaches.’ Well, you have had two thousand years to do it now, according to your own perspectives, where is the inspired commentary? Well there is none, there can’t be. And so the same thing is true in regards to Mormonism. And yet here you had a man … and alleged Apostle of Jesus Christ, and within just a few years of his death, his book outlining what the LDS church teaches is taken out of print. And I would say the vast majority of Mormon missionaries going door to door this day have probably never even seen it, let alone read it, let alone would they necessarily agree with it. What does that tell you? Tells you a lot! It tells you that Mormonism is changing; and the speed with which it is changing is truly amazing …”

The answer was given above. The theology and doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ is enshrined in its scriptural canon — the Standard Works. That is the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine. Anything that deviates from that, regardless of its origin, is not Church doctrine. It is true that in earlier days, some Church leaders were prone to engage in speculation about Church doctrine, which was not the right thing to do, and shouldn’t have been done. Man is prone to error. The early Apostles in the days of Jesus were not faultless either. But the lessons have been learnt, and those kinds of errors and speculations about doctrine are rare among the leadership of the Church nowadays. Bruce R. McConkie was one of those speculators; who wrote his book, Mormon Doctrine, long before he was ordained an Apostle; and which was disapproved of and rejected by the leadership of the Church at the time, long before he was called to be an Apostle. So James White has got it all badly wrong I am afraid, and demonstrated his bias and prejudice again as usual. And notice that in his criticisms, he never quotes directly from LDS scripture, which is the ultimate source of LDS theology and doctrine.

Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part VI

 

Pastor Jeff has just put out his latest video commenting on the contents of the Book of Mormon, in which he discusses the book of Alma, which is the longest book in the Book of Mormon. In this one he doesn’t say too many controversial things, so I will be brief in responding to it. At around 5:20 minutes into the video he starts commenting on a reference in the Book of Mormon to Jesus having been born “at Jerusalem,” and expressing surprise at it:

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

That is a common criticism of the Book of Mormon, which I had previously responded to and discussed in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.

At around 7:20 minutes into the video he expresses surprise at a reference in the Book of Mormon indicating the presence of spiritual gifts, or gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the Old Testament times, before the time of Christ:

Alma 9:

21 Having been visited by the Spirit of God; having conversed with angels, and having been spoken unto by the voice of the Lord; and having the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and also many gifts, the gift of speaking with tongues, and the gift of preaching, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the gift of translation;

The Bible, however, teaches that spiritual gifts existed in the Old Testament times, and that all the Old Testament prophets spoke as they were “moved by the Holy Ghost”:

2 Peter 1:

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

They are just not mentioned to have occurred in such a dramatic fashion as on the day of Pentecost. At around 12:16 minutes into the video he starts discussing the LDS understanding of the Fall of Adam, and whether it was a good thing or a bad thing—which he makes a big fuss about. In LDS theology, the Fall of Adam was a necessary and a required occurrence; but that does not mean that it was not a genuine “Fall” either. It was a real “Fall” (and a transgression), which caused mankind to become “carnal, sensual, and devilish”. The Book of Mormon fully affirms that:

2 Nephi 9:

6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

Mosiah 16:

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

Mosiah 27:

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Alma 22:

14 And since man had fallen, he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

Alma 34:

9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

Alma 42:

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

So it was indeed a transgression and a “Fall,” which caused all of mankind to become “carnal, sensual, and devilish,” and which necessitated the Atonement of Jesus Christ to redeem them from their fallen state—on condition of faith and repentance. The way in which Greg Matsen has talked about it (in an earlier discussion with him), makes it sound as though we don’t believe it was a real Fall. It was a genuine Fall (and a transgression); but in our theology, we believe it was a necessary and a required event, in order to give mankind the experiential knowledge of good and evil. I have previously discussed that subject in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.

And lastly, at around 43:00 minutes into the video he objects to the use of the word “epistle” in the book of Alma in these words:

“One thing that did jump out at me in these chapters, where these letters are being exchanged, is they are called epistles. Now that term is probably familiar to a lot of us, just from the New Testament, because Paul and Peter and James and a lot of the Apostles sent epistles to various churches, or regions in the first century; and as a result of that being a prominent genre in the New Testament, I have done a lot of studies of epistles. And it really is important to point out that an epistle is a very specific genre, it is not just a letter, it actually has very specific characteristics pertaining to what makes it more formal, as opposed to casual; and certain sections that exist within the letter that makes it an epistle. But one of the main characteristics of an epistle is that it is didactic, or there is some moral teaching, that is interwoven into that specific way of exchanging letters. And as I was reading through what the Book of Mormon is calling these epistles exchanged between the Nephites and the lamanites, they don’t look like epistles to me, they just seem like letters. They might have a certain formal quality to them, but they most certainly aren’t didactic, there is no teaching that is taking place. So it seems to me like a bit of a mislabeling, that they are being called an epistle. And again I am just giving my perspective, as someone who has studied that genre within the New Testament.”

He has got that badly wrong I am afraid, very badly wrong! An “epistle” is just a letter, nothing more. A Google search would quickly sort that out for him. The fact that in the KJV they are called epistles doesn’t make any difference to that. In most modern translations, the words translated as “epistle” in the KJV are translated as “letter”. Just to give an example, in Colossians 4:16, the word “epistle” occurs twice in the KJV:

Colossians 4:

16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

The same word in the same verse is translated as “letter” in the following modern Bible translations:

AMP, CSB, CEB, CJB, CEV, DARBY, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, ESVUK, EXB, GW, GNT, HCSB, ICB, ISV, PHILLIPS, LSB, LEB, TLB, MSG, MOUNCE, NOG, NABRE, NASB, NASB, NCB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NIVUK, NLV, NLT, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, NRSVUE, NTE, RGT, RSV, RSVCE, TLV, VOICE, WEB, WE.

And even in the KJV there is one instance in which the word “epistle” is used in a “non-didactic” sense, in exactly the same way in which it is used, and which he is objecting to in the Book of Mormon:

Acts 23:

31 Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris.

32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle:

33 Who, when they came to Caesarea and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.

34 And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia;

35 I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod’s judgment hall.

That “epistle” was a letter delivered by the soldiers escorting Paul to Felix the “governor,” explaining the circumstances of Paul’s arrest. You can read the full story in Acts 23. It was not a “didactic” letter. And in Galatians 6:11, Paul refers to his epistle to the Galatians as a “letter”:

Galatians 6:

11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.

Paul would normally dictate his epistles, and other people would write it down for him. But in the case of Galatians, apparently he wrote it down himself! It was a laborious and tedious task to write things down in those days; they weren’t so lucky as we are today. So people would normally employ scribes to write things down at their dictation, rather than write it down themselves. That is how Paul produced most of his epistles. So basically there is no difference between an epistle and a letter—even in the KJV. They both mean the same thing. The Book of Mormon is written in the idiomatic language and style of the KJV.