|
Even though
Mormon prophets and leaders have always stressed the
divine authority of the Book of Mormon, and
therefore that it could withstand any and
all critical scrutiny, many theologians and scholars
over the years have shown the falsity of the claim. Here
we will briefly highlight just several of the many facts
that disqualify the Book of Mormon for any
serious consideration of revelation from God. A more
in-depth discussion can be found in our book What Do
Mormons Really Believe? (Harvest House, 2002).
Psychic
Method of Writing
Even though
the Mormon church claims that Joseph Smith translated
the alleged gold plates (containing the alleged
historical records of the "Nephites" and "Lamanites") by
the power of God using divine implements called the Urim
and Thummim,1 the Book of Mormon was
actually produced through psychic methods and has
nothing to do with ancient history. It is merely a
product of nineteenth-century occultism.
Historical
documents prove that when Smith translated the Book
of Mormon he was only engaging in his usual practice
of crystal gazing. The testimonies of David Whitmer (one
of the three key "witnesses" to the Book of Mormon),
Emma Smith (one of Joseph Smith’s wives and scribes)
and William Smith (Joseph’s brother) make this clear.
In 1877,
Whitmer confessed that the alleged "Egyptian" characters
on the gold plates (Nephi 1:2) and their English
interpretation appeared to Joseph Smith while using his
seer stone with his face buried inside a hat:
I will now
give you a description of the manner in which the
Book of Mormon was translated. 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 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 Crowdery, 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. Thus the Book of
Mormon was translated.2
Emma Smith
revealed the same occult method. "In writing for your
father, I frequently wrote day after day.... He sitting
with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it,
and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."3
Clearly, the Book of Mormon was produced through
a form of crystal gazing. Testimonies such as these (and
others)4 have brought even some Mormons who
reject the idea to at least concede its possibility. The
tenth president and prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith,
confessed in his Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 3,
p. 225) that "it may have been so."
Human Sources
The Mormon
church believes that the Book of Mormon is an
account of ancient writings first inscribed on gold
plates at least fifteen hundred years ago that
chronicled the history of the so-called "Nephite" and "Lamanite"
peoples, who spanned a period from 600 B.C.—A.D. 421.
The Book of Mormon therefore claims to be a
translation of ancient historical records that date long
before Joseph Smith lived, and Mormons maintain that
apart from divine revelation it would have been
impossible for Joseph Smith to have done this
translation. Thus they consider this a great proof of
its heavenly derivation. Mormons, however, rarely
consider the other possibilities that explain the origin
of the Book of Mormon far better; for example,
that it could have been a combination of Smith’s natural
talent and spiritistic revelation from crystal gazing.
Concerning the former, there are several possible human
sources for the Book of Mormon.
Fawn Brodie,
who was excommunicated from the Mormon church for her
scholarly critical study on Joseph Smith, No Man
Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith5
cites persuasive evidence for the likelihood of a
nineteenth-century origin of the Book of Mormon.
For example, how likely is it that Jewish writers
between 600 B.C.—A.D. 421 would discuss the social and
religious issues common to nineteenth-century Christian
America?
Any theory
of the origin of the Book of Mormon that
spotlights the prophet [alone] and blacks out the
stage on which he performed is certain to be a
distortion.
[For
example, in] the speeches of the Nephi prophets one
may find [discussions of] the religious conflicts that
were splitting the churches in the 1820’s. Alexander
Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ, wrote in
the first able review of the Book of Mormon:
"This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles,
wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his Book of Mormon,
every error and almost every truth discussed in
New York for the last ten years. He decided all the
great [religious] controversies... [and even the
questions of] Freemasonry, Republican government and
the rights of man. But he is better skilled in the
controversies in New York than in the geography or
history of Judea. He makes John baptize in the village
of Bethabara and says Jesus was born in Jerusalem."
The
theology of the Book of Mormon, like its
anthropology, was only a potpourri.... Always an
eclectic, Joseph never exhausted any theory he had
appropriated. He seized a fragment here and another
there and of the odd assortment built his history.6
In his study
A Parallel, The Basis of the Book of Mormon, Hal
Hougey observes a number of striking similarities
between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith’s 1823
text View of the Hebrews, a book that was
available to Joseph Smith.7 Parallels between
the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews
were sufficient enough to prompt no less an authority
than Mormon historian B. H. Roberts to study the issue.
He concluded that it was possible for Smith alone to
have written the Book of Mormon.8
The language
of the King James Bible is also enlightening. According
to Dr. Anthony Hoekema, some 27,000 words taken from the
King James Bible appear in the Book of Mormon.
Anyone who compares the following list, which carries
just several examples, will see that Smith copied
material from the King James Bible:
• 1 Nephi
chapters 20,21—Isaiah chapters 48, 49
• 2 Nephi
chapters 7,8—Isaiah chapters 50, 51
• 2 Nephi
chapters 12,24—Isaiah chapters 2-14
• Mosiah
chapter 14—Isaiah chapter 53
• 3 Nephi
chapters 12,14—Matthew chapters 5-7
• 3 Nephi
chapter 22—Isaiah chapter 54
• 3 Nephi
chapters 24,25—Malachi chapters 3,4
• Moroni
chapter 10—1 Corinthians 12:1-11.9
[See the
chart at the end of this article for a comparison of
Isaiah 53 with Mosiah 14.]
Jerald and
Sandra Tanner, who have done massive amounts of research
on Mormonism, have also supplied evidence for other
sources for the creation of the Book of Mormon,
including: Josiah Priest’s The Wonders of Nature and
Providence Displayed (Albany, NY: 1825); The
Wayne Sentinel; The Apocrypha, a dream of Joseph
Smith’s father and The Westminster Confession and
Catechism. All this indicates that the Book of
Mormon could not have been a translation of ancient
records. What then is the real source of the Book of
Mormon? The most appropriate answer is that it
combines human sources from other books and spiritistic
revelation through Smith’s use of the seer stone.
Archaeology
and the Book
If the
Book of Mormon were truly an historical record of
ancient peoples inhabiting a vast civilization, it is
probable that at least some archaeological data would
confirm the civilization, just as it has confirmed, in
varying degrees, biblical and other ancient histories.
The Book of Mormon claims to represent the
history of three different groups of people, all of whom
allegedly migrated from the Near East to Central and
South America. Two of the groups supposedly traveled as
far north as Mexico and North America (the Book of
Mormon, Ether and 1 Nephi).10 The
Nephites and Lamanites are said to have been Semitic,
with the most important group being led by Lehi of
Jerusalem. His descendants became the Nephites. The main
history of the Book of Mormon concerns the
Nephites.
But not a
shred of archaeological evidence exists to support that
any of this is history, despite many vigorous
archaeological excavations financed by the Mormon
church. This has forced any number of non-Mormon
researchers to conclude that the Book of Mormon is
primarily myth and historical invention. Dr. Walter
Martin refers to "the hundreds of areas where this book
defies reason or common sense."11
Both the
prestigious National Geographic Society and the Bureau
of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institute have
issued official statements denying Mormon claims, and
the Tanners’ book, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon,
and other works, show that archaeological confirmation
claimed by the Mormon church is untrustworthy.12
Dr. Gordon Fraser, observing that Mormons still accept
their book as history, asserts that it in no way
corresponds to the known facts of the ancient Americas.13
Nevertheless,
Mormon apologists and lay writers alike claim that
archaeology proves that the Book of Mormon is
true. In fact, this is a standard argument frequently
used by Mormon missionaries around the world in their
attempts to convert people. As Hal Hougey observes in
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, most Mormons
think that archaeology is on their side.
The
numerous books and articles by Latter-day Saints over
the years have shown that Mormons believe that the
fruits of archaeological research may properly be
applied to verify the Book of Mormon. Dr. Ross
T. Christensen, a Mormon anthropologist, agrees: "If
the book’s history is fallacious, its doctrine cannot
be genuine.... I am fully confident that the nature of
the Book is such that a definitive archaeological test
can be applied to it."14
But
definitive archaeological tests have already been
applied, and they have discredited the Book of Mormon
as history. Mormon authority Gordon Fraser correctly
observes the Book of Mormon’s fictitious nature:
Mormon
archaeologists have been trying for years to establish
some evidence that will confirm the presence of the
[Mormon] church in America. There is still not a
scintilla of evidence, either in the religious
philosophy of the ancient writings or in the presence
of artifacts, that could lead to such a belief.
The whole
array of anachronisms [historical errors] in the book
stamps it as written by someone who knew nothing about
ancient America and presumed that no one ever would
know. It is total fiction, done by one who assumed
that cultures in ancient America would probably be
about the same as those of our own north eastern
states in the 19th Century. While certain Mormon
apologists are pledged to the task of defending the
credibility of the Book of Mormon,
because the church demands it, some professors at
Brigham Young University are demanding caution
concerning claims that the ruins of old temples and
other artifacts found in Mexico and Central America
are positive evidence of the claims of the Book of
Mormon.
The problem
has become a sticky one for Mormon scholars who would
like to be investigators in depth but are forbidden by
their church authorities.15
Lack of
Manuscript Evidence
Another
problem with Mormon claims about ancient Nephite history
is the lack of ancient manuscript evidence. Because of
their perceived importance, the religious scriptures of
most ancient peoples have been preserved, despite the
sometimes incredible odds against it. Occasionally, the
preservation is almost perfect, and the Bible of the
Jews and the New Testament of the Christians are unique
in this regard.16 Even with the Qur’an of the
Muslims and with Hindu and Buddhist scriptures some
evidence exists to determine a religious document’s
genuineness. For example, sufficient extant manuscript
evidence may exist to prove that a document is as old as
its proponents claim it to be.
This is not
true for the Book of Mormon. While the manuscript
evidence for the Bible is rich and abundant, for the
Mormon scriptures it is nonexistent.17 There
is no textual evidence for either an ancient Book of
Mormon or for any of Smith’s other alleged ancient
records. Is there a single ancient manuscript? Is there
even a portion of one, or even one fragment of a page?
No. There is none of this. Can the "gold plates" from
which Smith allegedly translated the Book of Mormon
be produced? Were these ancient records ever cited by
another writer? No. There is none of this either:
As far as
historical and manuscript evidence is concerned,
Joseph Smith’s scriptures have absolutely no
foundation. The "records of the Nephites," for
instance, were never cited by any ancient writer, nor
are there any known manuscripts or even fragments of
manuscripts in existence older than the ones dictated
by Joseph Smith in the late 1820’s. Joseph Smith’s
"Book of Moses" is likewise without documentary
support. The only handwritten manuscripts for the
"Book of Moses" are those dictated by Joseph Smith in
the early 1850’s. The "Book of Abraham" purports to be
a translation of an ancient Egyptian papyrus. However,
the original papyrus is in reality the Egyptian "Book
of Breathings" and has nothing to do with Abraham or
his religion. Therefore, we have no evidence for the
"Book of Abraham" prior to the handwritten manuscripts
dictated by Joseph Smith in the 1850’s. It would
appear, then, that there is no documentary evidence
for any of Joseph Smith’s works that date back prior
to the late 1820’s.18
Lack of
Mormon Doctrines
A further
point, briefly made here, but which should be of
particular interest to many Mormons, is that Mormon
teachings are not principally derived from the Book
of Mormon. Mormon doctrine is derived primarily from
another Mormon scripture, Doctrine and Covenants.
Thus, "... doctrinally the Book of Mormon is a
dead book for most Mormons.... The Book of Mormon
teachings have little bearing upon current Mormon
doctrine."19
The dilemma
that this poses for the Mormon church is a serious one
because Doctrine and Covenants [D & C],
emphasizes that the Book of Mormon contains
basic, or fundamental, Mormon teachings. For example,
according to D & C, the Book of Mormon
contains "the truth and the Word of God" (D & C,
19:26); "the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ"
(that is, Mormon teachings, D & C, 20:9); and
"the fullness of the everlasting gospel" (D
& C, 135:3). Doctrine and Covenants also has
Jesus claiming that the Book of Mormon has "the
principles of my gospel" (D & C, 42:12) and "all
things written concerning the foundation of my
church, my gospel, and my rock" (D & C, 18:4, cf.
17:1-6; emphasis added; see also Book of Mormon,
Introduction).
According to
Doctrine and Covenants, then, the Book of
Mormon must contain at the very least most of the
central doctrines of Mormon faith. But the Book of
Mormon contains few major Mormon teachings. It does
not teach any of the following central Mormon
principles, which form the foundation of the Mormon
church and its "gospel": polytheism; God as the product
of an eternal progression; eternal marriage; polygamy;
human deification; the Trinity as three separate Gods;
baptism for the dead; maintaining genealogical records;
universalism; God has a physical body and was once a
man; God organized, not created, the world; mother gods
(heavenly mothers); temple marriage as a requirement for
exaltation; the concept of eternal intelligences; three
degrees of heavenly glory (telestial, terrestrial,
celestial); salvation after death in the spirit world; a
New Testament era of Mormon organizational offices and
functions such as the Melchizedek and Aaronic
priesthoods; stake president and first presidency.20
All this is
why some Mormon writers have noted the theological
irrelevance of the Book of Mormon to Mormonism.
For example, John H. Evans observed "how little the
whole body of belief of the Latter-day Saints really
depends on the revelation of the Nephite record [the
Book of Mormon]."21
Given the
vast amounts of scholarly research that is similar to
and affirms our brief survey of the Book of Mormon,
all the evidence points to the unavoidable conclusion
that the Book of Mormon is really a piece of
nineteenth-century fiction. Whatever else it is, it
cannot be a divine revelation. Writing in "The
Centennial of Mormonism" in American Mercury,
Bernard De Voto described it as "a yeasty fermentation,
formless, aimless and inconceivably absurd."22
All this is why Mormon leaders tell potential converts
to ignore criticism of the Book of Mormon and
rely entirely upon subjective (completely personal)
"confirmation." Nevertheless, the church’s appeal to
subjectivity does nothing to convince a rational person
why he or she should believe in the Book of Mormon.
To believe without any evidence is troublesome enough;
to believe in spite of the evidence is folly.
Notes
1
In the Book of Mormon Introduction—testimony of
Joseph Smith—the Urim and Thummim are described as two
stones in silver bows fastened to a breastplate. We do
not know exactly what the Old Testament Urim and
Thummim were. Nevertheless: 1) they were restricted in
usage to the high priest; 2) the God of the Bible only
rarely "spoke" through them to reveal his will; and 3)
apparently they were two separate objects, not a
single stone, which is what Smith used. Thus, in each
category Mormon claims are refuted. Whatever Smith
used, it was not the biblical Urim and Thummim (Ex.
28:50; Num. 27:21). Joseph Smith was not an Old
Testament high priest who used these implements to
reveal God’s will. He used an occult seer stone to
divine the "translation" of a "text" that denies God’s
Word (cf. Mosiah 28 preface and verse 15).
2
David Whitmer, "An Address to All Believers in Christ
by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of
Mormon" (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing Co., 1887,
reprint 1972), p. 12
3
The Saints Herald, May 19, 1888, p. 310.
4
See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Joseph Smith and
Money Digging (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, 1970), passim.
5
Einer Anderson, Inside Story of Mormonism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1974), p. 61.
6
Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 2nd
ed (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976), pp. 69-70,
72-73.
7
Hal Houghey, A Parallel, The Basis of the Book
of Mormon: B. H. Roberts’ "Parallel" of the
Book of Mormon to View of the Hebrews
(Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, 1975), p. 4; Harry
L. Ropp, The Mormon Papers: Are the Mormon
Scriptures Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1987), p. 36.
8
Originally cited in The Rocky Mountain Mason,
Billings, MT, January 1956, pp. 17-31; also in Jerald
and Sandra Tanner, Did Spaulding Write the Book of
Mormon? (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, 1977), p. 17.
9
Cf. Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism, rev.
ed. (Santa Ana, CA: Vision House Publishers, 1978), p.
68.
10
Although the traditional view is that the Book of
Mormon story covers North and South America, some
modern Brigham Young University academicians,
apparently attempting to coordinate Book of Mormon
claims and geography with existing data back pedal and
accept a more limited geography. They believe, for
example, that the Cumorah in New York was really in
Southern Mexico. (Taken from the Book of Mormon
and in part from Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine
(Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1977), pp. 528-529;
Martin, Maze, pp. 47-48; Floyd McElveen,
Will the "Saints" Go Marching In?: A Comparison of the
Mormon Faith with Biblical Christianity (Glendale,
CA: Regal, 1977, retitled The Mormon Illusion),
pp. 59- 61; Gordon Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian?
Mormon Doctrine Compared with Biblical Christianity
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1977), chapter 16; and
Arthur Wallace, Can Mormonism Be Proved
Experimentally? (Los Angeles, CA: Arthur Wallace,
1973), chapter 9. They believe, for example, that the
Cumorah in New York was really in Southern Mexico.
11
Martin, Maze, p. 328.
12
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Behind the Mask of
Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers,
1996), pp. 287-289.
13
Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian? p. 135.
14
Hal Houghey, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon,
rev. ed. (Concord, CA: Pacific Publishing, n.d.), pp.
3-4.
15
Fraser, Is Mormonism Christian? pp. 143-145.
16
Norman L. Geisler, William E. Nix, An Introduction
to the Bible, rev. and exp. Ed (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1986); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1971).
17
Ibid.
18
cf. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of
Mormonism: A Behind the Scenes Look at Changes in
Mormon Doctrine and Practice, rev. ed. (Chicago,
IL: Moody Press, 1981), pp. 369-370.
19
Wesley Walters, "Whatever Happened to the Book of
Mormon?" Eternity magazine, May 1980, p. 32.
20
From Bob Witte, comp., Where Does it Say That?: A
Witnessing Resource for Christians (Safety Harbor,
FL: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, n.d.), p. 4.
21
Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Changing World, p.
560, citing Improvement Era, 16:344-345.
22
Bernard De Voto, "The Centennial of Mormonism,"
American Mercury, 19 (1930), p. 5.
|
King James Version—Isaiah 53 |
Book of Mormon—Mosiah 14 |
|
1. Who
hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of
the LORD revealed?
2. For he
shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a
root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor
comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire him.
3. He is
despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our
faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him
not.
4. Surely
he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and
afflicted.
5. But he
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace
was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6. All we
like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every
one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7. He was
oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not
his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he
openeth not his mouth.
8. He was
taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall
declare his generation? for he was cut off out of
the land of the living: for the transgression of my
people was he stricken.
9. And he
made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death; because he had done no violence, neither
was any deceit in his mouth.
10. Yet
it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him
to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his
days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in
his hand.
11. He
shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities.
12.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto
death: and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors.
|
[1] Yea,
even doth not Isaiah say: Who hath believed our
report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
[2] For
he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and
as a root out of dry ground; he hath no form nor
comeliness; and when we shall see him there is no
beauty that we should desire him.
[3] He is
despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and
acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our
faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him
not.
[4]
Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of
God, and afflicted.
[5] But
he was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed.
[6] All
we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on
him the iniquities of us all.
[7] He
was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened
not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is
dumb so he opened not his mouth.
[8] He
was taken from prison and from judgment; and who
shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out
of the land of the living; for the transgressions of
my people was he stricken.
[9] And
he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich
in his death; because he had done no evil, neither
was any deceit in his mouth.
[10] Yet
it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him
to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering
for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his
days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in
his hand.
[11] He
shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be
satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many; for he shall bear their
iniquities.
[12]
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the
great, and he shall divide the spoil with the
strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto
death; and he was numbered with the transgressors;
and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors.
|
|
