LaVergne Church of Christ |
The Book of Mormon - A Book of Error and Fraud
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. WHAT IS THE BOOK OF MORMON?
II. MORMON CLAIMS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE BOOK AND HOW IT WAS TRANSLATED
III. MISSPELLED WORDS
V. REDUNDANT PHRASES AND WORDS
VI. FABRICATED WORDS
VII. FRAUDULENT LANGUAGE
VIII. CHANGES IN CONTEXT
IX. ABSURDITIES
XII. NO HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE
XIII. SMITH'S CLAIM - "AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR"
XIV. ERRONEOUS CLAIM - SMITH A "TRANSLATOR"
XV. "WITNESSES" NEEDED FOR REINFORCEMENT
XVI. CIRCULAR REASONING AND FAITH IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
INTRODUCTION
The Mormon church promotes the Book of Mormon as an inspired
writing. However, after fair and candid examination of the
evidence, many thousands of honest Mormons have discovered this
is not true. What have they learned that caused them to reject
the Book of Mormon?
To those who believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired, the following information will, no doubt, be disturbing. However, please read it with an open mind, knowing that it is written in good will and with the intention of helping people come to a better understanding of spiritual truth. Only the truth can make one free. (John 8:32)
I. WHAT IS THE BOOK OF MORMON?
Supposedly, the Book of Mormon is the story of two groups of people who traveled by sea from Bible lands to the Americas. One group, the Jeredites, dating from about 2500 B.C., populated Central America but was eventually destroyed. The other group, Jewish descendents of the tribe of Manasseh (with whom most of the Book of Mormon deals) came to South America in about 600 B.C. and eventually migrated into Central and North America. They were divided into two nations, the Nephites and Lamanites. Jesus is supposed to have revealed himself on the American continent where he preached the gospel and established Christianity. After becoming enemies, the Nephites were destroyed in 385 A.D. by the Lamanites, who were "cursed" with dark skin and became the ancestors of the American Indians. It is claimed that this story was recorded in an ancient language on gold plates which were buried on a hill in New York in 421 A.D. by Moroni, the last of the Nephites. It is further claimed that between 1827 and 1829, Moroni, this time as an angel, appeared to Joseph Smith revealing to him the plates. Then, by the power of God and by using miraculous stones called "Urim and Thummim" (and sometimes "seer" stones), Smith allegedly "translated" these plates into English.
II. MORMON CLAIMS REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE BOOK AND HOW IT WAS TRANSLATED
In 1841 Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "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." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol. IV, p.461) This is an astounding claim! Surely, a book that is the "most correct" on earth would contain no mistakes. However, as we shall see, this is not the case.
Exactly how was the Book of Mormon supposed to have been "translated" from the plates? Describing how this was done David Whitmer, one of the so-called "three witnesses" to a testimony appearing at the front of the Book of Mormon, said: "Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by the power of man." (ADDRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p.12)
In addition, at the front of the Book of Mormon under the section entitled TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH, it is said that this book was "translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested by Divine affirmation."
If the Book of Mormon was translated by the "power of God" it is reasonable to assume that it would be completely free from error. The fact is, however, the original edition is filled with many mistakes. That this is true is attested by the fact that Mormon writers have tried to explain why the mistakes exist and why thousands of changes have been made in the text. Joseph Smith's poor education, lack of communication with copiers and typesetting mistakes have been suggested as plausible explanations, however, these are woefully inadequate.
Some Mormons have offered the explanation that Joseph Smith was not given the actual words but only the "idea" or "sense" of what was to be written, therefore, allowing for the possibility of human error. However, this claim contradicts clear statements made by renowned Mormon leaders of the past. For example, David Whitmer gives the following detailed explanation of how the "translating" came about.
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling a parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear." (ADDRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, Richmond, Missouri, 1887, p.12)
Martin Harris, another of the three witnesses, wrote, "The translation was just as it was engraven on the plates precisely in the language then used." (THE MYTH OF MANU-SCRIPT FOUND, p.71) He added, "The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly translated the next appeared." (Ibid. p.91) Joseph F. Smith, sixth president of the Mormon church, said, "Some persons have thought that the Lord revealed to Joseph the ideas, and that Joseph conveyed those ideas into the English language. But this is not so. The Lord gave not only the ideas but the language itself - the very words." (THE TERRITORIAL INQUIRER, March 2, 1881) Again, he explained:
"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was as a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stoned would remain there." (JOURNAL OF OLIVER HUNTINGTON, p.168, Utah State Historical Society) In addition, Mormon historian, Brigham H. Roberts, wrote that "the interpretation...was reflected in the sacred instrument, there to remain until correctly written by the scribe." (NEW WITNESSES FOR GOD, Vol.III, p.114)
Also, the testimony of the three witnesses to the plates, found in the front of the Book of Mormon, reads, "And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."
And finally, of the original manuscript, Joseph Smith himself claimed that he and the three witnesses were told by God, "These plates have been... translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol. I, pp.54-55)
The above statements are very important, for they explain the specific nature of the translating - the very words being given by God, spelled out, written properly, a character at a time, and repeated and corrected if in error. And all this was allegedly overseen by "the gift and power of God" and "attested by Divine affirmation." This means there could have been no mistakes. Therefore, mistakes found in the Book or Mormon cannot be attributed to Smith's poor education or lack of communication with copiers. The glaring mistakes that will here be presented make this all too obvious.
And neither can these mistakes be blamed on typesetting. Note: The original handwritten manuscript allegedly dictated by Joseph Smith and the corrected handwritten manuscript from which the first printing was made, when compared reveal many changes! Remember, this was before the typesetting was done!
Following are several convincing reasons why this book is not only uninspired, but that it is also a book of error and fraud. The evidence of this is so certain and undeniable that after seeing it any honest, searching mind will come to this conclusion.
The original edition of the Book of Mormon has within it dozens of misspelled words. This shows the writer had a very poor knowledge of the English language. The question is, how could these misspelled words have gotten into a translation being overseen by the power of God? Here are just a few such errors.
1. "journied" (for journeyed)
(I Nephi 4:38; 5:6; 7:6; 18:25; II Nephi 5:7; Omni 1:16)
2. "bellowses" (for bellows)
(I Nephi 17:11)
3. "feading" (for feeding)
(Enos 1:20)
4. "sayeth" (for saith)
(Mosiah 12:21)
5. "bablings" (for babblings)
(Alma 1:32)
6. "tempels" (for temples)
(Alma 16:13)
7. "yars" (for years)
(Alma 19:16)
8. "phrensied" (for frenzied)
(Alma 30:16)
9. "eigth" (for eighth)
(Alma 53:23)
10. "adhear" (for adhere)
(Alma 60:34)
11. "eatheth" (for eateth)
(III Nephi 20:8)
That this book is promoted as inspired by God is a reflection on God's wisdom and his ability to give a volume containing marks of inspiration! Would God inspire a translation in which corrections would have to be made in later editions? Remember, Joseph Smith himself said that any mistakes were corrected as they were detected. The misspelled words alone show any claim of inspiration for the Book of Mormon is futile.
There are literally thousands of grammatical errors in the original edition of the Book of Mormon, errors that have been gradually changed in later editions. These take the form of such things as double negatives, incorrect adverbs and adjectives and especially incorrect tenses. Note these examples:
1. "Behold, for none of these I cannot
hope" (II Nephi 33:9)
2. "And Mosiah, nor the people of
Mosiah, could not understand them" (Omni
1:17)
3. "And now behold the Lamanites could
not retreat neither way" (Helaman 1:31)
4. "Yea, if my days could have been in
them days" (Hela-man 7:8)
5. "And it came to pass that
there was certain men passing by" (Helaman 7:11)
6. "That all might see the writing which
he had wrote" (Alma 46:19)
7. "I would cite your minds forward to
the time when the Lord gave these commandments" (Alma
13:1) (This error still exists in recent editions!)
8. "they did not fight against God no more" (Alma
23:7)
9. "I have wrote to them" (III
Nephi 26:8)
10. "I were about to write to them" (III
Nephi 26:11)
11. "the gates of hell is" (III
Nephi 18:13)
12. "the multitude had all eat" (III
Nephi 20:9)
13. "I Moroni have written the words which was
commanded me" (Ether 5:1)
14. "the law had ought to be done away" (II
Nephi 25:27)
15. "which was wrote upon the plates" (Alma
44:24)
16. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (I
Nephi 5:11)
17. "who was the most foremost among them" (Alma
32:5)
18. "that there might not be no more sorrow" (Alma
29:2)
19. "And this he done" (Alma 2:10)
20. In the first chapter of the Book of Mormon alone (I
Nephi 1, which has only 20 verses) there are no less than four
such errors. For example: "my father had read and saw,"
"the tender mercies of the Lord is"
The Mormon claim of the accurate and precise translation of the Book of Mormon cannot be harmonized with errors such as these. A divinely guided book would not contain this kind of grammar, and to claim inspiration for such a book is to cast reproach upon God himself! Remember, there are thousands of such errors! For this reason the honest, sincere mind must reject the Book of Mormon.
V. REDUNDANT PHRASES AND WORDS
In the Book of Mormon there are several words and phrases that are often repeated. These appear so frequently they make the reading, to say the least, redundant.
1. The phrase "and it came to pass" is so common in the Book of Mormon (over 1200 times) that often it makes the reading monotonous. In I Nephi alone this phrase is used almost 200 times. In I Nephi 3:21-29 it is used to begin eight of these nine verses. In the sixty-nine verses of Ether 14 and 15 it is used thirty-nine times. Another phrase duplicated beyond reason is "the more part." Now, would a God of inspiration give a book with such awkward repetition?
2. Many words in the Book of Mormon are overused. For example, the word "behold" is used repeatedly with no real need. Likewise the word "thereof" is used to excess as is the word "insomuch." These and many similar words confirm that the writer was deficient in his vocabulary.
3. Often the Book of Mormon is wordy, using too many words to express a simple thought. A good illustration is IV Nephi 1:6 which reads: "And thus did the thirty and eight years pass away, also the thirty and ninth, and forty and first, and the forty and second, yea even until forty and nine years had passed away, and also the fifty and first, and the fifty and second; yea, and even until fifty and nine years had passed away." This is quite a mouthful just to say that 59 years had passed. Could anyone imagine the Bible reading like this? The writer definitely tended to ramble.
4. Also the use of colloquial terms is apparent in the Book of Mormon. The frequent use of "a" with various participles is noticeable - "a journeying," "a preaching," "a marching," "a pointing," "a preparing" "a coming." Such terminology betrays the influence of more modern vernacular and is not the language one would expect to find in writings of ancient times.
Not only did the writer of the Book of Mormon misspell many words, he also had a practice of contriving new words or simply using words incorrectly. Here are some examples.
1. "preparator" (for preparer) (I
Nephi 15:35) (this still exists in later editions)
2. "arriven" (for arrived) (Alma
20:30)
3. "numerority" (for a vast number) (Alma
56:10)
4. "molten" (for melt) (Ether
3:1) (this still exists in recent editions.)
5. "flatter" (for alure and instigate)
(Alma 52:19; Helaman 1:7)
6. "enormity" (for vast
numbers) (Alma 52:5)
7. "arrested" (for wrested) (Alma
41:1)
8. "consigned" (for convinced) (Helaman
7:9)
9. "repair" (for recompense) (Alma
27:8) (this still exists in later editions)
10. "ezrom" "senine" "limnah"
(coins) (Alma 11:6; Alma 11:3)
11. "cimeter" (a sword) (Enos
1:20)
12. "neas" (a plant) (Mosiah
9:9)
13. "sheum" (a crop) (Mosiah
9:9)
14. "deseret" (a bee) (Ether
2:3)
15. "curelom" "cummons" (unidentified
animals) (Ether 9:19)
Obviously these are contrived and misused words and do not bear marks of inspiration. Since God is "not the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33) he would not have allowed such words to be penned.
In the original edition of the Book of Mormon there is much evidence of fraud - that is, the use of words, phrases and sentences that reveal an obvious attempt to deceive. Instances of this are so many and so blatant they cannot be ignored. Notice these examples.
1. Alma 37:38, dated at 73 B.C., speaks of the people using a "compass." However, such an instrument was not invented until about 1100 A.D. How could there be a divinely inspired translation of a word describing something that did not exist? This is a mark of fraud.
2. I Nephi 18:25, dated at 589 B.C., speaks of "horses" and "asses." But, these animals were unknown in the western hemisphere until the Spaniards introduced them about 450 years ago. Can anyone believe that such a bungled mistake came by Divine revelation?
3. Ether 9:19 speaks of "elephants" being in America when the Jaradites arrived. This was supposed to be about 2250 B.C. However, it is a known fact that elephants were not native to America. To claim that they were is absurd and proves the Book of Mormon to be erroneous. Or, will it be argued that elephants were brought to America in their boats?! But, elephants were not native to Bible lands either.
4. Surprising as it may seem, no less than six times the Book of Mormon uses the abbreviation "etc" (and so forth), a usage peculiar to the nineteenth century. (Subtitle of II Nephi; Jacob 1:11; Mosiah 8:8; 23:5; Alma 3:5) Now, can it be believed that such a symbol is a "translation" from ancient writings? This is a dead giveaway to the recent origin of this book.
5. In Jacob 7:27 is found the French word "adieu." But, how could this be? How could the equivalent of a modern French word have found its way into those ancient plates? This is clear evidence of fraud and grounds for rejecting the Book of Mormon.
6. In Jacob 3:11 and Mosiah 29:14 the word "faculties" appears. However, this is a term dating back no earlier than middle English. Strange, indeed, that it would be "translated" from a word on an ancient plate dating over 1000 years earlier.
7. II Nephi 29:3 reads, "A Bible, A Bible, we have got a Bible..." This is referring to the Jewish Old Testament and is dated at about 550 B.C. However, the word "Bible" is the English transliteration of the Greek term "biblos" and came into use over 1500 years later. In using the word "Bible" the writer of the Book of Mormon made a serious blunder which shows the book to be of recent origin and, hence, fraudulent.
8. III Nephi 15:21 is a word for word quote of John 10:16 of the King James Version. However, this version is only about 400 years old. This is another major blunder. And to make matters worse, it even quotes the italicized word "and" which was supplied by the King James translators! Here, the writer of the Book of Mormon unwittingly demonstrates his work to be plagiarism.
9. The entire fourteenth chapter of Mosiah, made up of 12 verses, is a duplication of Isaiah 53:1-12. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out - it had to be copied! And besides this, all eleven of the italicized words in the King James text are quoted, but not in italics! The writer apparently did not know the difference.
10. Moroni 7:45, which is a quotation of I Corinthians 13:4-7 in the King James Version, is another example of fraud. In citing this verse the writer included the italicized word "easily" - "is not easily provoked." However, the word "easily" is not in the original, but was incorrectly placed there by the King James translators. (For this reason it is left out of later versions.) That the writer included this word shows that it was, indeed, copied from the King James version.
11. In II Nephi 31:13 and other places reference is made to the "Holy Ghost." But, the term "ghost" did not come into use until many hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been inscribed on ancient plates. That the writer borrowed this from the King James Bible is indisputable.
12. The word "baptism" is found in II Nephi 31:13 and other places. But, is this actually a translation of a word found on ancient plates? Absolutely not. "Baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word "baptisma" and is peculiar to the King James Version. This word is clearly a copy of an early English term, hence, demonstrating again the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon.
13. The word "epistle" in III Nephi 3:5 is an obvious copy from the English King James Version. Like baptism, the word "epistle" (epistolos) was left in its original Greek form, but given an English ending. This shows the writer of the Book of Mormon was not very careful in selecting his words.
14. The words "alpha" and "omega" appear in III Nephi 9:18. These, of course, are the English spellings of Greek words found in the Bible. (Revelation 1:8, 21:6 and 22:13) Now, since the Book of Mormon was not recorded in Greek, why were these words used? The fact is, they were copied right out of the King James Version.
15. III Nephi 20:23-26, dated at 34 A.D., refers to Moses' prophecy about Christ. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18,19) However, the writer unwittingly used Peter's New Testament paraphrase of this prophecy (Acts 2:22-26), which was not written until about 63 A.D. This was almost 30 years too soon! There is no explanation for this, except to say that it proves the Book of Mormon to be a hoax.
16. In the Book of Mormon are numerous instances of the writer using words that were not relevant to his time. Rather, these are words peculiar to the English spoken in the early 1600's. For example: "prayest" "durst" "thou" "thee" "thy" "thine" "hast" "doth" "knoweth" "hearest" "cometh" "thirsteth" and so on. Now, the question is, did God really select these words for the Book of Mormon? This obviously shows the writer's exposure to King James terminology.
(Note: Scores of passages in the Book of Mormon, either in part or whole, exact or paraphrase, have been taken from the King James Version. In fact, some researchers have estimated that as much as 4% can be traced to this English translation.)
These examples, and many others, clearly illustrate the Book of Mormon to be fraudulent and not a translation from ancient plates at all. This book is of rather recent origin and honest people can see why this is so.
The first edition of the Book of Mormon contains instances of extremely poor sentence structure that, for obvious reasons, were changed in later editions. Also it includes several doctrines considered false by the present-day Mormon church, in which cases the texts have been changed to conform to what is now taught. Notice these examples:
1. In Helaman 1:16 there is an incomplete sentence which shows the writer of the Book of Mormon to be unfamiliar with proper sentence structure. In an effort to correct this embarrassing problem, two words were removed from the text and a period was changed to a comma. The original reads,"... who was the son of Ammoron. Now Tobiah supposing that..." The corrected edition reads, "who was the son of Ammoron, supposing that..." Obviously, this is not merely a typographical change, but a change to correct bad sentence structure. Can it be believed that the original rendering came from God? Would he have allowed such a mistake to be penned under his oversight?
2. Mosiah 21:28 contains a very serious mistake. Here, "king Benjamin" is spoken of as alive. However, the writer apparently forgot that fifteen chapters earlier he recorded this man's death. What he meant to write was "king Mosiah." The second edition of the Book of Mormon made this change. How did such a conspicuous mistake slip into a translation being overseen by the power of God? In making this change, the Mormon church admitted the error.
3. I Nephi 11:18 says of Mary, "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God." This glaring error was changed in the second printing with the addition of three words! It now reads, "...the mother of the Son of God." The question is, which version is to be believed, Smith's original or the correction?
4. I Nephi 11:21 reads, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father." Now such an idea is contrary to Mormon theology, yet, this is exactly what the original Book of Mormon states! So, to remove the problem, later editions have changed it by adding three words - "even the Son of the Eternal Father." Again, which one is right, Smith's original or the correction?
5. In Alma 5:48 is found the statement, "yea, the Son of the only begotten of the Father." That the writer of the Book of Mormon states that Jesus had a son is another example of bungled writing. Later editions replaced the word "of" with a comma making it read, "yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father." Can anyone imagine God making such an error? These, as well as other textual changes in the Book of Mormon, have been done to correct bad composition and faulty doctrine. However, if this book had been inspired by God errors such as these would have never appeared.
One might wonder why such glaring mistakes were not caught by the printer. The fact is, they were. However, John H. Gilbert, printer of the first edition, when asking Joseph Smith about the mistakes, was told to make no corrections. According to Gilbert's affidavit, Smith told him, "The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written." (Memorandum, John H. Gilbert, JOSEPH SMITH BEGINS HIS WORK, containing a photocopy of the first printing of the Book of Mormon, Wilford C. Wood) Apparently, Smith used what he thought to be grammatical errors of the King James version as justification to leave in his mistakes.
The Book of Mormon contains several stories that, to say the least, are absurd. They involve tales that strain common sense. Here are a few such accounts:
1. III Nephi 28:4-8 speaks of three men who were told by Jesus that they would never die, but would remain on earth until his second coming. However, the Bible is clear in explaining that God has "appointed" man to die. (Hebrews 9:27) Such a tale is so imaginary many Mormons are reluctant to admit they believe it.
2. Ether 2:6-25; 6:6 relates the story of how the Jaredites came to America in eight boats called "barges." They were said to be "the length of a tree," whatever that may mean. These were strange "barges" for they were "peaked" at the ends in the shape of footballs and were sealed "tight like unto a dish." They were like submarines, for they were sometimes "buried in the depths of the sea like whales." How absurd! But, the story is even more absurd by the fact that God forgot to provide ventilation for the boats. After having this pointed out to him, he directed the people to put a hole in the top and bottom of each boat. This was done so they could alternate plugging and unplugging as they tumbled in the sea. But God also forgot to provide for light. After being reminded, he asked what to do. He was told to make sixteen illuminating stones, two for each boat. Not only is this story foolish, it is an insult to God's intelligence and makes him inept.
3. Ether 15:30,31 relates one of the most peculiar and bizarre stories in the Book of Mormon. It tells of a man named Coriantumr killing a man named Shiz. "And it came to pass when he had smitten off the head of Shiz, which Shiz raised upon his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died." This is amusing. Imagine, a decapitated man raising up and trying to breathe! Isn't it a fact that decapitation brings immediate death? One is made to wonder if this "struggle" to breathe was from the mouth or the top of the neck?!
4. According to II Nephi 3:6-18 Joseph (of the Old Testament) allegedly prophesied that Joseph Smith would come from the "fruit of his loins." In other words, he was to be a direct descendent of Joseph! Such an idea is so silly it hardly needs exposing! His own mother, in her biography of Joseph Smith, traced their family back five generations and 300 years to England. (JOSEPH SMITH, THE PROPHET, pp.38-44) And, too, the Book of Mormon itself tells that the last of the Jewish descendants in America, the Lamanites, became Indians. Accordingly, Joseph Smith, to be a descendent of the Jews, had to be of Indian blood. (Because it is so unbelievable, Mormon writers claim this prophecy was "figurative." However, in the inspired language of the Bible the phrase "the fruit of his loins" always refers to literal offspring.)
5. I Nephi 5:14,16 tells that Lehi, a devout Jew, did not know from whom he descended. However, after reading some long lost plates he "did discover the genealogy of his fathers" and "knew that he was a descendent of Joseph." Now, since it is well known that the Jews were very careful in knowing and recording their ancestry, can it be believed that a Jew who "dwelt in Jerusalem all his days" (I Nephi 1:4) would not be aware that he was descended from Joseph? Yet, this is what the Book of Mormon reports. It is evident that the writer of this book was not familiar with Jewish resolution regarding their ancestral records.
Stories like these are too ludicrous to accept and they establish the fact that the writer of the Book of Mormon had no credibility.
The Book of Mormon contains numerous contradictions with the Bible. The following examples, which still appear in recent editions, are more than conspicuous.
1. The Bible says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. (Matt.2:1) However, the Book of Mormon reads, "And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem." (Alma 7:10) The writer of the Book of Mormon simply did not have his facts straight. The common Mormon explanation for this is that since Jerusalem was so close to Bethlehem, it could be said he was born there. However, in the Bible, prophets of God did not make it a practice of just being close. God would not make such a mistake!
2. The Bible relates that at the crucifixion there were three hours of darkness. (Lk.23:44) However, the Book of Mormon states there was darkness "for the space of three days."(Helaman 14:20, 27) Now, this is a big difference. Which one is true? Or is God responsible for both statements?
3. The Book of Mormon relates that at the tower of Babel the Jaradites had their separate language. (Esther 1:34,35) The Bible, however, plainly states "the whole earth was of one language." (Gen.11:1) Apparently, the writer of the Book of Mormon mistakenly thought there were many different languages and that God confounded them while sparing the language of the Jaradites. The fact is, there was only one language and God confounded the people by creating different languages! That the writer was lacking in Biblical understanding is obvious.
4. III Nephi 11:8-10 claims that after Jesus ascended to heaven he appeared in America to the Lamanites and Nephites in 34 A.D. However, this clearly contradicts the Bible. Of the ascension of Christ to heaven God said, "Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstools." (Acts 2:34,35) How long was he to be in heaven at God's right hand? "For he must reign, until he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (I Corinthians 15:25,26) Furthermore, of the ascension the Bible teaches, "whom the heavens must receive until the restitution of all things." (Acts 3:21) Christ did not come to America - because he has been in heaven since his ascension.
5. In the Bible the name "Jesus" was first announced by an angel to Mary. (Luke 1:31) This was in 1 B.C. However, Alma 19:29, dated in the Book of Mormon at 90 B.C., has a woman speaking to the Lord and calling him "Jesus." Now, which account is true?
6. The Bible teaches that the church was established on the day of Pentecost following the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 2) This was about 33 A.D. However, Mosiah 18:17, dated at 145 B.C., has the church already existing. Quite a discrepancy, to say the least. Both cannot be correct. (Note: This same reference from Mosiah also mentions "baptism" as the means of being added to the church. However, according to the Bible the baptism taught by Christ did not begin until New Testament times. Matthew 28:19)
7. The Bible clearly reveals that the disciples of Christ "were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26) This was about 40 A.D. However, Alma 46:13,15, dated at 73 B.C., has people wearing the name "Christian." This is over 100 years difference. Now, which account are people to believe?
8. The Book of Mormon teaches that "Melchizedek ...did reign under his father." (Alma 13:18) Yet, the Bible reveals that Melchizedek was a priest under no one. His priesthood typified the priesthood of Christ and was, therefore, unique. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, the Bible states Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without descent" emphasizing that he did not inherit his priesthood. (Hebrews 7:3) The writer of this book did not know his Bible.
9. Ether 3:8,9 speaks of God having "flesh and blood." However, every Bible student knows that God is a "spirit" and as such does not possess a material body. (John 4:24) (Note: In DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, another so-called "inspired" writing of Joseph Smith, he wrote, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." (Section 130:22) Both the Bible and Book of Mormon cannot be right.
10. Mosiah 2:3 states, "And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings, according to the law of Moses." A more blatant contradiction with the Bible could not be found. The law of Moses did not teach this! The firstlings of the flocks were to be reserved for the Lord and given to the priests. Never were they used for sacrifice. (See Exodus 13:2,12; 22:29,30; Numbers 3:13; 18:15-18; II Samuel 24:24)
1. Mosiah 4:2,3 tells that the people had forgiveness of their sins by the "atoning blood of Christ." However, this was over 150 years before Christ died! The Bible plainly says that "without shedding of blood is no remission." (Hebrews 9:22) How could their sins have been forgiven before Christ's blood was even shed?
12. III Nephi 18:28,29 speaks of those who are "unworthy" to partake of the communion and that such people should be forbidden to partake. This is an obvious copy of Paul's discussion in I Corinthians 11:27,29. (In fact the Book of Mormon has a footnote to that effect.) The application made here shows that the writer of the Book of Mormon did not understand what Paul was saying and made a serious misinterpretation! Paul was not discussing man's personal worthiness or lack of it. Rather, he was discussing the manner in which the communion was being partaken. The context makes this clear. The word "unworthily" is an adverb of manner and points to the way or manner in which a thing is done. The church at Corinth was abusing the communion in the manner they were observing it. To show the correct idea the American Standard Version uses the phrase "in an unworthy manner." By misinterpreting the word "unworthy" the composer unknowingly shows his work to be man-made.
13. In Ether 3:14 Jesus is reported as saying, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." Such a statement is totally false. To have Jesus claiming to be the Father contradicts many plain Bible verses. Paul, for example, declared "the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3) Jesus himself said, "my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) Jesus is not the Father and such a false statement is proof positive that the Book of Mormon is false.
It stands to reason that if God guided the translation of the Book of Mormon, it would not contain such conspicuous contra-dictions with the Bible. Remember, Mormon leaders claimed that in translating all mistakes were corrected as they were detected. This means that God failed to detect these mistakes!
While the Bible is held in high esteem in educated circles throughout the world for its literary quality, the Book of Mormon is totally disregarded in this matter. The literary standard of both Old and New Testaments in Hebrew and Greek is matchless. The composition and style of the Bible set it apart from all other pieces of literature. However, the Book of Mormon has no such quality. The fact is, because of its tedious, repetitious and dull nature it is poor quality. It simply does not have the identifying marks of good literature.
XII. NO HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL VALUE
In the areas of history and archaeology the accuracy of the Bible is flawless, so flawless in fact that for years researchers of the ancient middle east have used it as a standard. Its record of cities, mountains, rivers, seas and other locations is completely accurate. Likewise, its references to various nations are precise. Many Biblical places and people, which for centuries were unknown to secular history (such as the great Hittite nation), have been discovered. Archaeology has consistently verified the Bible record.
However, this cannot be said of the Book of Mormon. It records hundreds of people and places that have never been authenticated! In fact, when questioned about its historical and archaeological reliability major institutions, such as the Smithsonian Institute, have clearly said that it has none. Of its unverifiable people and places here are only a few examples. Of people: Nephites, Lamanites, Jaradites, Amulonites, Zoromites, Amlicites, and many others. Of places: Shazer, Jershon, Jashon, Helam, Heshlon, Manti, Middoni and many more. All these names are fabricated and, hence, unknown to history and archaeology. How could the many great cities and vast numbers of people portrayed in the Book of Mormon have gone completely undetected by research? The fact is, they never existed.
So obvious is the fact that the Book of Mormon is unverifiable historically and archaeologically, that a recent brochure published by Brigham Young University, states, "Though we cannot speak authoritatively or precisely about the location of Book of Mormon sites, we can - by a visit to Mesoamerica - create a mental tapestry resembling the land and circumstances in which the story actually happened." (TRAVEL STUDY UPDATE, 1990) So, it is all just imagination! Enough said!
XIII. SMITH'S CLAIM - "AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR"
On the title page of the first edition of the Book of Mormon are found the words: "By Joseph Smith, Junior, Author and Proprietor." The words "By" and "Author" indicate one who composes or originates. The word "Proprietor" denotes one who owns or has legal right. These words covey Smith's original concept of this book. Can it be believed that God would allow an inspired writer to make such a claim? In the second edition of the book this was changed to read, "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun." Why was this change made? Smith and his followers realized such an expression detracted from the claim of inspiration which may cause the book to be rejected. The original claim made by Smith ought to cause even the most zealous Mormon to have very serious doubts.
XIV. ERRONEOUS CLAIM - SMITH A "TRANSLATOR"
The claim that Smith was "translator" of the Book of Mormon is erroneous. According to Smith and other early Mormon leaders, he merely read the words revealed on the magical stones. This means all he did was dictate to the copiers what he saw. To say he was a "translator" is a false claim and shows that neither Smith nor his followers understood the meaning of translating.
XV. "WITNESSES" NEEDED FOR REINFORCEMENT
One of the most incredible things about the Book of Mormon is the inclusion of human testimony to verify its authenticity! Three men reportedly signed a statement to this effect, which statement usually appears in the front of the book. Evidently the writer of the Book of Mormon anticipated people would not believe the book, and for good reason. Hence, the need for reinforcement. It is inconceivable that after giving an inspired writing, God would then need men to sign a written statement testifying to its inspiration. In this statement they claimed to have seen some plates and that God told them they had been translated correctly. (Their claim that God spoke to them is reason enough to reject their "testimony.") It should be noted that all three of these so-called "witnesses" apostatized from the Mormon church. Joseph Smith himself said, "David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, Vol. III, p.232)
Note: Of the testimony of Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, John H. Gilbert, printer of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, in a written affidavit, said:
"Martin was in the office when I finished setting up the testimony of the three witnesses ...I said to him, 'Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?' Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.' " (Memorandum, John H. Gilbert, JOSEPH SMITH BEGINS HIS WORK, containing a photocopy of the first printing of the Book of Mormon, Wilford C. Wood)
And if this was not enough, Smith apparently felt it necessary to have a second group of men sign a statement to verify the Book of Mormon. This time there were eight. However, the only thing these men testified to was that Smith showed them some plates. They made no claim that God spoke to them. It is of note that all but one of these men were conveniently in the Smith and Whitmer families. In addition, the reading of the original statement of the eight has been changed. The original contained the words, "Joseph Smith, Jr., the Author and Proprietor." However, it now simply reads, "translator." This change was made for the same obvious reason it was made on the title page.
Imagine the epistles of Peter, Paul and John having attached to them written statements signed by groups of men to confirm their authenticity! The idea that God would need a signed affidavit from men to verify his word is blasphemous and offensive.
As one writer expressed it, a small child who has drawn a crude picture of a cat, and fearing it will not be recognized as such, may write below it, "This is a cat!" How well this illustrates the Book of Mormon with its "witness" statements. On the other hand the work of a great artist needs no such verification, for his work will stand on its own merits. Such is the case with the Bible.
XVI. CIRCULAR REASONING AND FAITH IN THE BOOK OF MORMON
The Book of Mormon closes with an appeal to pray to God asking him to reveal that the book is true. An assurance is then given that if one is "sincere" God will "manifest" that it is true. (See Moroni 10:4) However, this is circular reasoning. First, after assuming (expecting) the Book of Mormon to be true, one is to then ask God to reveal that it is true. So to establish the proof of this book, one must first accept it to be true! Such logic is completely worthless but is typical of the subjective nature of Mormon religion.
In contrast, the Bible is an objective revelation and needs no subjective confirmation. It is not necessary to ask God to reveal its authenticity through a separate source, for it stands on its own merits. However, the Book of Mormon cannot so stand and this deceptive effort to create faith in the book exposes its author as a perpetrator of a hoax.
It is difficult to believe that, after having seen the evidence, any honest person could accept the Book of Mormon as inspired by God. There are just too many things wrong with it. The signs of fraud are so numerous and obvious they stand as barriers to any acceptance of this book.
The material furnished here represents a sincere and candid presentation of the facts. It is hoped that honest hearts will carefully examine the evidence and accept the truth that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a man-made book.
