On Mormonism.
The Book of Mormon.
Rex Banks
Introduction
Even a cursory study of scripture is enough to show that the God of Mormonism bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible, (see our tract The God[s] of Mormonism) and of course one's understanding of the nature of God is fundamental to one's belief system. This being the case, it would seem to be an easy matter to convince our Mormon friends of the errors of their theology by simply referring them to the relevant Biblical teachings, and inviting them to compare the God of Abraham, Moses and Paul with the God(s) of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. Unfortunately this approach seldom works, and the reason for this is that our Mormon friends are convinced that the Bible which we possess today is seriously flawed.
In the Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we are told:
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Article 8)
Now the first part of Article 8 sounds reasonable enough. After all most Christians recognize that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. However we need to take a closer look at LDS writings to see what actually lies behind this innocuous sounding statement. In the Book of Mormon we read:
"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away...." (1 Nephi 13:26, [emphasis mine])
This teaching that much spiritual truth vanished from the earth because of apostasy permeates Mormon writings. For example under the heading The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation, Donald Q.Cannon, Larry E. Dahl and John W. Welch write in the LDS publication Ensign:
"With the apostasy and the loss of many plain and precious truths that were once part of the gospel the true knowledge of God was lost. The surviving fragments of truth were subsequently interpreted into mystery, and those who continued to believe in the basic truths about God were denounced as heretics. By the fourth century A.D., little remained of mankind's original understanding of God." (Ensign (Jan. 1989, [emphasis mine])
In similar vein Ray L. Huntington and Camille Fronk wrote in an article entitled Latter-day Clarity on Christ's Life and Teachings:
"Nephi prophesied that 'many plain and precious' truths would be removed from the Bible. It is not surprising, therefore, to see that such doctrines as the premortal life of Jesus Christ, the significance of events on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the more complete meaning of some of the Lord's discourses are only vaguely taught in the King James Version (KJV) of the New Testament." (Ensign Jan 1999)
So there you have it. Many parts that are "plain and most precious" were taken away from the Bible, along with "many covenants of the Lord," the result being that certain important doctrines are only "vaguely taught" in the KJV, and "little...(remains) of mankind's original understanding of God." In fact according to our Mormon friends, the Biblical record is so corrupted that it took latter day revelation to restore the true gospel and the true church to the earth. Huntington and Camille Fronk explain:
"Fortunately the Lord has made known the 'plain and precious things' taken from the Bible through 'other books,' which include the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST). Thus, when we use these latter-day scriptures with the New Testament, we gain a fuller understanding of the life and mission of Jesus Christ." (ibid)
Joseph Smith and Mormons of succeeding generations have emphasized the centrality of the Book of Mormon to the "restored gospel." Smith wrote:
"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 any other book." (History of the Church 4:461 [emphasis mine])
Under the heading A New Witness for Christ, we have the following in Ensign Magazine of Nov 1984:
"Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, 'Men can get nearer to the Lord, can have more of the spirit of conversion and conformity in their hearts, can have stronger testimonies, and can gain a better understanding of the doctrines of salvation through the Book of Mormon than they can through the Bible. … There will be more people saved in the kingdom of God - ten thousand times over - because of the Book of Mormon than there will be because of the Bible.' " (President Ezra Taft Benson, Address at Book of Mormon Symposium, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug 1978 [emphasis mine])
A little earlier McConkie (who belongs to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) wrote in Ensign, Nov. 1983:
"Ponder the truths you learn (from the Book of Mormon [Rex]) and it will not be long before you know that Lehi and Jacob excel Paul in teaching the Atonement; that Alma's sermons on faith and on being born again surpass anything in the Bible; that Nephi makes a better exposition of the scattering and gathering of Israel than do Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel combined; that Mormon's words about faith, hope, and charity have a clarity, a breadth, and a power of expression that even Paul did not attain; and so on and so on." (What Think Ye of the Book of Mormon? [emphasis mine])
These are bold claims indeed, and they make it clear that we are not going to impress our Mormon friends by protesting loudly "A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible" (2 Nephi 29:3). Our friends have a ready answer for us: "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words" (2 Nephi 29:10). Nor is the divine assurance that "the word of the Lord abides forever," (1 Pet. 1:25) going to be adequate for anyone who believes that he can "gain a better understanding of the doctrines of salvation through the book of Mormon" than through the New Testament. McConkie states the matter plainly:
"If the Book of Mormon is true - if it is a volume of holy scripture, if it contains the mind and will and voice of the Lord to all men, if it is a divine witness of the prophetic call of Joseph Smith - then to accept it and believe its doctrines is to be saved, and to reject it and walk contrary to its teachings is to be damned...
Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it is false; either it came from God, or it was spawned in the infernal realms. It declares plainly that all men must accept it as pure scripture or they will lose their souls. It is not and cannot be simply another treatise on religion; it either came from heaven or from hell. And it is time for all those who seek salvation to find out for themselves whether it is of the Lord or of Lucifer." (ibid)
This Mormon leader is clear and forthright, and hopefully I will be able to explain with equal clarity and forthrightness why I believe the Book of Mormon to be a fraudulent document which threatens the spiritual lives of all who are misled by its spurious claims. McConkie affirms that "the Book of Mormon withstands all attempts to disprove it or to lessen its inspiring effect on the people who gain a testimony of it." (ibid) In my view the opposite is true, and there is abundant evidence that the Book is the work of a fallible human being. McConkie claims that "scholarly study of the Book of Mormon continues to reveal the book's consistencies and bear witness of its veracity"; (ibid) I am convinced on the other hand that the Book does not stand up under critical examination. The good news is that in recent years many former members of the LDS church have had their confidence in the Bible restored, and frequently this is the result of their having become aware of the many inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies in the Mormon documents. The irony is that we have far more evidence today for the essential reliability of the text of the Bible than was available in Joseph Smith's day, while conversely, problems with the Mormon documents have multiplied year by year.
In the paragraphs which follow, we will drawn attention to just a few of the serious difficulties confronting LDS apologists with respect to the Book of Mormon, but it needs to be emphasized that in doing so we are not motivated by hatred or contempt, but rather by the sincere desire to restore faith in the gospel of Christ. In fact some influential Mormon leaders have invited critical investigation of their beliefs. Back in 1853, Mormon apostle Orson Pratt wrote:
"(C)onvince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds." (The Seer, pp.15,16)
Not long after having obeyed the gospel, I came across a small library of material produced by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, ex-Mormons who specialize in the reproduction and critical examination of LDS documents. Operating as the Modern Microfilm Company, the Tanners have made available many out-of-print or suppressed documents relating to Mormon history and doctrine, and the volume and quality the of material is very impressive. I have collected and made use of the Tanner's books over the years, and I have depended heavily upon that material in this study. Their materials are available through Utah Lighthouse Ministries, P.O. Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah. 84110. Let's consider just a few of the many problems confronting those who defend the inspiration of the Book of Mormon.
Archaeology And The Book of Mormon
The Introduction to the Book of Mormon tells us that this work contains "a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas." We are told that this record "gives an account of two great civilizations," the earliest being that of the Jaredites who arrived soon after the confusion of tongues recorded in Genesis 11. By about 600 - 300 BC the Jaredites had destroyed themselves through war. The second great civilization began when a group of Hebrews migrated from Jerusalem to America about 600 BC, led by a prophet, Lehi. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"They multiplied and eventually split into two groups. One group, the Lamanites, forgot their beliefs, became heathens, and were the ancestors of the American Indians. The other group, the Nephites developed culturally and built great cities but were eventually destroyed by the Lamanites about AD 400. Before this occurred, however, Jesus had appeared and taught the Nephites (after his ascension). The history and teachings were abridged and written on gold plates by the prophet Mormon. His son, Moroni, made additions and buried the plates in the ground, where they remained about 1,400 years, until Moroni, a resurrected being or angel, delivered them to Joseph Smith; subsequently Smith returned them to Moroni."
Now clearly we would not expect a civilization which has "developed culturally and built great cities" to disappear without trace. In their well-researched book Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Jerald and Sandra Tanner have the following from Mormon archaeologist M.Wells Jakeman under the heading A Lost Civilization:
"(T)he Book of Mormon refers time and time again to permanent settlements of its peoples - 'cities', 'towns' or 'villages' with grain fields round about - and only rarely to temporary settlements... the Book of Mormon peoples, instead of having a 'type of culture (namely nomadic) which leaves little if anything behind it' ...had cultures of mainly sedentary type, which - as proved by the results of archaeological excavation throughout the world - invariably leave behind extensive material remains... it is inconceivable - and contrary to worldwide archaeological experience - that such (Book of Mormon) civilizations could have existed without leaving behind some identifiable remains." (The University Archaeological Society BYU March 30 1957 pp.1-7) (Archaeology and the Book of Mormon p.10)
And therein lies the problem for Book of Mormon archaeologists, because the fact is that no "extensive material remains" (or indeed any remains at all) of Book of Mormon civilizations are to be found in the Americas. The following quotations from leading Mormon apologists are among many used by the Tanners to demonstrate that even within the LSD church, those most qualified to comment on New World archaeology acknowledge that there exists no archaeological support for the Book of Mormon:
"Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology, I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion...."
"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half- truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists, do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not...(because) no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography...
It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee Green, [then Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Weber State college] Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp.76-78) (ibid p.65)
(A)lthough archaeology may not have "disproved" the book of Mormon claims in an absolute sense, confident claims of "tangible proof" of the Nephite civilization were now uttered only by the uninformed. (Mormon writer Davis Bitton, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Autumn 1966 p.123) (ibid p.4)
"The publication of magnificent volumes of photographs of the ruins of buildings and cities located in the area of high civilization in the Americas is another example (of intellectual pitfalls into which Mormon writers have fallen). These lavishly illustrated books are frequently written and published in an endeavour to prove that complex civilizations exit in the Book of Mormon period. Unfortunately, their photographs for the most part are of cities that were built after the book of Mormon period had ended. They can have little bearing on the problem of the cultural characteristics of the book of Mormon peoples..."
"There is unfortunately prejudice in the field against publications in archaeology by members of our Church as all too often such works have contained unsupported speculations, wishful thinking, and theories resting on little evidence." (Clark S. Knowlton, papers of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the scriptures, pp.53, 54) (ibid p.6)
In a tract entitled Testing the Book of Mormon, the Tanners have the following from Professor Raymond T. Matheny of Brigham Young University who specializes in Mesoamerican archaeology:
"If I were doing this cold... I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it had no place in the New World whatsoever. I would have to look for the place of the Book of Mormon events to have taken place in the Old World...It seems misplaced. It seems like there are anachronisms. It seems like the items are out of time and place, and trying to put them into the New World. And I think there's a great difficulty here for we Mormons in understanding what this book is all about." (Book of Mormon Archeology, Response by Professor Ray T. Matheny, Sunstone Symposium, August 25, 1984, typed copy transcribed from a tape recording, pp.30-31)
Now let's keep in mind that none of the above quotations are from hostile critics of Mormonism, but rather from Mormon apologists. It is not surprising that comments by non-Mormon experts in the field are even more blunt. In their book The Changing World of Mormonism, the Tanners record the following comment by Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World:
"Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples.... Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group....
The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp.41, 42, 46 and p.134)
In response to numerous inquiries about the alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide by the Smithsonian Institute, this prestigious organization issued a letter stating that it has "never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide," adding that "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book (of Mormon)". (quoted from 1996 version)
Let's take a look at some specific problems with Book of Mormon archaeology:
Strong evidence exists that certain materials mentioned in connection with Book of Mormon civilizations did not exist in the New World within the time frame of the Book. For example iron and steel are mentioned in various places (1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18; 2 Nephi 5:15) and as Mormon professor Raymond T. Methane points out: "In refining ores and then bringing these to casting and true metallurgical processes is another bit of technology that leaves a lot of evidence." Methane explains that "when you have a ferrous metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over." He adds:
"You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were performing these tasks, they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things. No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. The evidence is absent." (1984 Sunstone Theological Symposium. p.23)
Anachronistic references to animals, plants and crops are also found in the Book of Mormon. For example in Ether 9:18-19 we read of "all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other animals which were useful for the food of man. And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man; and more especially the elephants and cureloms cumoms." (cf 1 Nephi 18:25; 3 Nephi 3:22, 18:25; Mosiah 5:14, 12:5; Alma 18:9) We also read of grain, wheat, barley and flax/linen and silk (Mosiah 7:22; 9:9; 1 Nephi 13:7; 2 Nephi 13:23; Alma 1:29)
In the Smithsonian Institute letter (above) we read that "none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492." (Evidently a form of barley was found in the pre-Columbian period, but it was not domesticated Old World barley). Some Mormon apologists have suggested that Old World names may have been applied to native New World animals, so that (for example) Book of Mormon horses are in fact deer, but context rules out such "explanations" (e.g. Book of Mormon horses are domesticated animals, kept in stalls and mentioned in connection with chariots).
No Book of Mormon cities, towns, landmarks or names have been located. Mormon writer Fletcher B. Hammond has said:
"(T)here does not yet appear any artifact that we Latter-day Saints can present to the world - and prove by any scientific rule - that such artifact is conclusive proof of any part of the Book of Mormon. The lack of certainty in book of Mormon land marks justifies the conclusion that there must have been extensive land changes in Mosoamerica during the last 1500 years; and such appears to be factual." (an address given March 25 1964, BYU p.5) (quoted in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon p.10)
The fact is that not a single city has been located using the Book of Mormon. Mormon archaeologist Dee Green says bluntly:
"Biblical archaeology can be studied because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where (Book of Mormon cities) Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were or are (emphasis added). It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee Green, [then Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Weber State college] Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp.76-78) - (quoted in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon p.65)
The utter failure of Book of Mormon archaeology in this area is impossible to ignore, but Mormon leaders have tried to explain it away. For example in the Church Section of the Deseret News of July 29, 1978, we read:
"The geography of the Book of Mormon has intrigued some readers of that volume since its publication. But why worry about it...
Efforts to pinpoint certain places from what is written in the book are fruitless because the record does not give evidence of such locations in terms of modern geography...
Attempts to designate certain areas as the Land Bountiful or the site of Zarahemla or the place where the Nephite city of Jerusalem sank into the sea 'and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof' can bring no definitive results. So why speculate..."
But this simply will no do in light of the fact that the location of certain Book of Mormon events and places is described in detail. For example allegedly millions of warriors died in battle on Hill Cumorah, near Palmyra, New York (Ether 15:2, 11 [read entire chpt]; Mormon 6:11-15 ). Joseph Smith claimed to have found the bones of one such warrior with "the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow" between his ribs in Illinois (History of the Church, June 3, 1834, 2:79-80) so the remains of many others should be located at Hill Cumorah, but despite the great number of warriors involved in the battle, there have been no artifacts such as stone arrow heads, axe heads, gold silver, iron steel or copper items discovered at the site. Again in the History of Joseph Smith we are told that the Book of Mormon city Manti was located in Huntsville, Randolph County Missouri, (Vol. 16, p.296) and in the Index we are told that the land of Manti was "the most southerly land of Nephites." Despite these details Manti remains undiscovered and this is true of all other Book of Mormon cities as well.
Christian Civilization in the Americas? In 4 Nephi we are told that the Nephites and Lamanites "upon all the face of the land" (v.2 cf v.23) were converted to Christ, and that they "did build cities again where there had been cities burned". (v.7) Peace and prosperity prevailed for a period of 200 years. Now clearly the existence of a uniform Christian civilization over two continents for some 200 years would leave traces behind, but as Mormon critic M.T. Lamb said more than a century ago, there is an abundance of evidence that "a Christian civilization has never existed in central America, not even for a day." Lamb points out:
"The people of Central America, as far back as their record has been traced (and that is centuries earlier than the alleged beginning of Nephite history), have always been an idolatrous people, as thoroughly heathen as any which the history of the world has described, worshipping idols the most hideous in form and feature that have ever been found upon earth, and accompanying that worship by human sacrifices as barbarous as the annals of history have recorded....
For more than three thousand years... (the history of Central America) was one unbroken record of superstition and human slaughter... The entire civilization of the Book of Mormon, its whole record from beginning to end is flatly contradicted by the civilization and the history of Central America." (The Golden Bible; or, The Book of Mormon. Is It From God?, New York, 1887, pp.284-289 as quoted in Mormonism, Shadow or Reality, Jerald and Sandra Tanner)
Reformed Egyptian? In 1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:4 we are told that Lehi used the Egyptian language, and from Mormon 9:32, 33 we learn that the hieroglyphics upon the Book of Mormon plates were "Reformed Egyptian." Just how Jews living in the city of Jerusalem and their descendants came to be speaking Egyptian is incapable of satisfactory explanation, as is the fact that the plates contained reformed Egyptian, but leaving these matters aside, let's consider the following question: "Has the archaeologist's spade uncovered any evidence in support of the Book of Mormon claim that something called reformed Egyptian was in general use by the inhabitants of the Americas during the period in question?"
The answer is that there is no evidence of the use of "reformed Egyptian" in the Americas. In the Smithsonian letter (see above) we read:
"Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."
In his Mormon Claims Answered Marvin Cowan points out:
"It is incredulous to believe that multitudes of Israelites lived in America speaking Egyptian and writing in 'Reformed Egyptian' yet, never left a single trace of their language! The only early Native American written language ever found is the Mayan in Yucatan. Archaeologists have found many ancient inscriptions throughout the Americas, but no 'Reformed Egyptian', pure Egyptian, or Hebrew! Were all of the 'Nephites' and 'Lamanites' illiterate - except the B. of M. scribes?"
In their Archaeology and the Book of Mormon the Tanners record the following comment by Mormon scholar Dr John L. Sorenson, then Assistant professor of Anthropology at BYU:
"I do not believe that any neutral-but-interested jury would be convinced today by any evidence at hand that ..any Egyptian writing has been found in the New World, (or) that any Semitic language has been found in the New World..." (Book of Mormon Institute, Dec 5, 1959 pp.6-27)
Origin of the Indians. In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith we read:
"Much has been said and done of late by the general government in relation to the Indians (Lamanites) within the territorial limits of the United States." (Section Two 1834-37, p.92)
Now since Book of Mormon Lamanites were descendants of the Israelite prophet Lehi it follows American Indians are of Israelite descent. Under the heading Lamanites and the Church M. Dallas Burnett wrote in Ensign, July 1971:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unique in its theological and philosophical understanding of the peoples in the Americas known as Indians and of the inhabitants of the Pacific islands. These people are a remnant of the House of Jacob and descendants of Lehi, an Israelite who left Jerusalem and came to the Americas around 600 B.C. Found in the Book of Mormon, a record of revelations received by these ancient peoples, are great promises for the Lamanites." (p.11)
Now the suggestion that American Indians are descendants of Israelites did not originate with Smith and is to be found in a number of works which ante-date the book of Mormon, including History of the American Indians by James Adair, The Hope of Israel by Manasseh ben Israel, View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith and The Wonders of Nature and Providence by Josiah Priest. However according to the Smithsonian Institute letter (see above):
"The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia."
Also from Smithsonian:
"The American Indians are physically Mongoloids and thus must have originated in eastern Asia. The differences in appearance of the various New World tribes in recent times are due to (1) the initial variability of their Asian ancestors; (2) adaptations over several millennia to varied New World environments; and (3) different degrees of interbreeding in post-Columbian times with people of European and African origins." (Origin of the American Indians, National Museum of Natural History-Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1985, p.1)
In their Changing World of Mormonism pp.135, 6 the Tanners quote Mormon anthropologist M. Wells Jakeman who says that he does not know "...of any non-Mormon archaeologist who holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews..."
Now these are just a few of the very real problems which arise in connection with Book of Mormon archaeology, and they are problems for which Mormon apologists have no real answers. Some attempts to deal with these problems are embarrassingly inadequate. Listen to Mormon apologist Antoine R. Ivins:
"Now if we go into Mexico and Central America, and into our own United States, and by scraping aside the earth which has accumulated over the centuries, expose to view a consecutive and true story of this people which would bear out, in all its major details, the story of the Book of Mormon, what a simple thing it would be. But it would lose, in my mind, one of the greatest values.... I believe that God purposely covered up these things that when the Book of Mormon should come to light in this generation it would be accepted on faith... faith to me is the greatest thing in life, and God purposely, I believe covered up in antiquity the history of this people and the story of the Book of Mormon, so that when it should come to light it would have to rest upon faith..." (109th annual Conference Report, pp.128, 129) (quoted in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon p.63)
It's just sad that anyone would seriously suggest that God may have purposely covered up in antiquity the history of this people and the story of the Book of Mormon, especially in light of the fact that the essential historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by a mountain of archaeological evidence. Other LDS apologists have attempted to deal with these archaeological difficulties by arguing that evidence for book of Mormon civilizations has been sought in the wrong places. For example Mormon archaeologist John L. Sorrenson has written concerning Book of Mormon geography:
"(F)or at least the past forty years, many students of the subject who have studied it in depth have reached similar basic conclusions: (1) the events reported by Nephite and Jaredite scribes evidently covered only a limited territory in the New World 'land of promise', and (2) there is presently known only one location in the Western Hemisphere that seems qualify as that scene." (Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture, Ensign, Sept. 1984, 27)
Sorrenson explains that "for a long time, few people seemed to see any difficulty in setting the Book of Mormon in all of North and South America," (the "Traditional" view) but he then goes on to affirm that modern language studies and archaeological discoveries have made this position untenable. He tells us that he and other Mormon scholars have concluded that "the immediate land covered by the book's events was probably only hundreds rather than thousands of miles long and wide" and that the area in question is in Mesoamerica, "that portion of central and southern Mexico and northern Central America where the highest level of ancient cultural development in the hemisphere occurred." On the map below A represents the "Mesoamerican" position and B the "Traditional" position). Note the great difference in land area.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Sorrenson reminds his readers that Mormon scripture "says much about a long tradition of written records in Nephite-Jaredite territory" and points out that "in Mesoamerica, over a dozen writing systems are known, some of which extend back, on present evidence, to at least the beginning of the first millennium B.C." On the other hand "nowhere else in all the Americas do we presently have reliable evidence that a genuine system of writing and a tradition of books existed before the arrival of the Europeans in the sixteenth century."Now this abandonment of the traditional position in favour of the Mesoamerican position by many Mormon scholars, simply confirms the fact that it is impossible to harmonize the Book of Mormon account with what we now know of the history of North and South America. This suggestion that the Book's events must have taken place in an area "only...hundreds of miles long and wide" in the region of "southern Mexico and northern Central America" has only arisen because there is good evidence that the great civilizations, buildings etc described in the Book of Mormon never existed in North and South America. Quite simply, the archaeologist's spade has made the traditional position untenable.
However, unfortunately for those who take the "Mesoamerican" position, their approach not only fails to solve the very real problems mentioned above, but it actually creates additional problems. The most serious of these problem is this: to reject the "traditional" position that Book of Mormon geography includes both North and South America, is to deny the clear teaching of Joseph Smith and later LDS authorities. For example in Helaman 3:8 we read concerning the Nephites:
"And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south, to the sea north, from the sea west, to the sea east."
Between 1880 and 1920, footnotes to editions of the Book of Mormon identified "the land southward" as "South America," the "land northward" as "North America," the "sea south" as the "Atlantic, south of cape Horn," the "sea north" as "Arctic, north of North America," the "sea west" as the "Pacific" and the "sea east" as the "Atlantic". Thus these footnotes support the traditional view that Book of Mormon events took place in over a vast area which included North and South America. What's more, this quote from Helaman 3:8 rules out the Mesoamerican position, because if Book of Mormon events are located in Central and Southern Mexico and Northern Central America, there is no "sea north" and no "sea south." What's more, we recall that according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon city Manti was located in Huntsville, Randolph County Missouri, (History of Joseph Smith Vol. 16, p.296 [emphasis added]) and that the land of Manti was "the most southerly land of Nephites" (emphasis added). Clearly this cannot be harmonized with the Mesoamerican position. Equally challenging is the fact that in June 1834 Joseph Smith was guided by divine revelation to identify a skeleton found in Illinois as that of a Lamanite warrior named Zelph "... who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea (i.e. Atlantic ocean) to the Rocky mountains" (History of the Church, June 3, 1834, 2:79-80. [emphasis mine]) Clearly Zelph cannot have been known from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky mountains unless this region of North America was inhabited.
The bottom line is that there is not a scrap of evidence to support Book of Mormon archaeology, despite the fact that, as Jakeman pointed out, "it is inconceivable - and contrary to worldwide archaeological experience - that such (Book of Mormon) civilizations could have existed without leaving behind some identifiable remains."
The Witnesses
According to Joseph Smith it was in 1823 that he first learned of the existence of certain gold plates containing "the record of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites." Four years later he received the plates and subsequently he translated them. This translation was published in 1830 under the title The Book of Mormon. Unfortunately the plates are not available for examination, allegedly because they were returned to an angel following translation. However each edition of the Book of Mormon contains the testimony of two groups of witnesses in two separate statements. The first of these is The Testimony of Three Witnesses signed by OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER and MARTIN HARRIS which reads in part:
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. 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 we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes."
Now the LDS Church places great store upon this testimony. In an Ensign article entitled The Law of Witness, Dallin H.Oaks writes that "witnesses and witnessing are vital in God's plan for the salvation of His children." He continues:
"The three men chosen as witnesses of the Book of Mormon were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. Their written 'Testimony of Three Witnesses' has been included in all of the almost 100 million copies of the Book of Mormon the Church has published since 1830...
The solemn written testimony of three witnesses to what they saw and heard - two of them simultaneously and the third almost immediately thereafter - is entitled to great weight....
Furthermore, their testimony stands uncontradicted by any other witnesses. Reject it one may, but how does one explain three men of good character uniting and persisting in this published testimony to the end of their lives in the face of great ridicule and other personal disadvantage? Like the Book of Mormon itself, there is no better explanation than is given in the testimony itself, the solemn statement of good and honest men who told what they saw." (Ensign, May 1999, 35)
Obviously the credibility of any testimony is closely related to the character of the one giving it, so clearly those examining the Mormon documents will be interested in any clues as to the reliability, stability and integrity of the three witnesses. In this context the following statement by Oaks is noteworthy:
"As is well known, because of disagreements or jealousies involving other leaders of the Church, each one of these three witnesses was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by about eight years after the publication of their testimony." (ibid [emphasis added])
Now it is not reassuring to learn that "each one of these three witnesses was excommunicated from The Church" and it is not unreasonable to ask if there are any clues as to the character of these men. With this in mind lets consider some statements which were made, not by hostile critics of Mormonism, but by leading figures in the LDS church. Brigham Young second LDS President said:
"Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (JD 7:164)
So among those whose testimony we are expected to believe are those who, according to the second President of the Mormon Church, were "left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." Does this tell us something about the character of at least some of the witnesses?
Equally disturbing is a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith in which reference is made to "a wicked man," elsewhere identified as Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses. Allegedly the Lord said to Smith:
"And when thou hast deliveredst up that which God had given thee sight and power to translate, thou deliveredst up that which was sacred into the hands of a wicked man, Who has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgment and boasted in his own wisdom." (D&C 3:12, 13)
How confident are we in the testimony of one who is described by the Lord as a wicked man, who has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgment and boasted in his own wisdom?
The witness Oliver Cowdery is said to have received a message from the Lord which gives us an insight into his character and that of David Whitmer. In D&C 28:1, 2, 11, 12 the Lord says to Cowdery:
"Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver, that it shall be given unto thee that thou shalt be heard by the church in all things whatsoever thou shalt teach them by the Comforter, concerning the revelations and commandments which I have given. But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.
And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants."
In History of the L.D.S. Church, Joseph Smith reveals what lies behind these divine instructions to Cowdery:
"To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive, and seeking whom hemight devour: Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain 'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations. As a conference meeting had been appointed for the 26th day of September, I thought it wisdom not to do much more than to converse with the brethren on the subject, until the conference should meet. Finding, however, that many, especially the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery, were believing much in the things set forth by this stone, we thought best to inquire of the Lord concerning so important a matter; and before conference convened, we received the following ..." (vol. 1, pp.109-10)
We will meet Hiram Page again a little later, but here we simply ask: "How much discernment did the Whitmer family and Cowdery show in this matter? Does not all this suggest that Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were very gullible and easily fooled? Does this really inspire confidence in their reliability as witnesses?"
Again from History of the L.D.S. Church we have the following from Joseph Smith:
"Look at the dissenters...these men, like Balaam, being greedy for reward, sold us into the hands of those who loved them, for the world loves his own. I would remember William E. McLellin, who comes up to us as one of Job's comforters. God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job - but it never entered into their hearts that Job would get out of it all. This poor man who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer, to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel; and this ass not being of the same kind as Balaam's, therefore, the angel notwithstanding appeared unto him, yet he could not penetrate his understanding sufficiently, but that he brays out cursings instead of blessings. Poor ass! Whoever lives to see it, will see him and his rider perish like those who perished in the gain-saying of Korah, or after the same condemnation. Now as for these and the rest of their company, we will not presume to say that the world loves them; but we presume to say they love the world, and we classify them in the error of Balaam, and in the gain-sayings of Korah, and with the company of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram." (3:227, 228).
Little comment is needed. Joseph Smith himself describes David Whitmer one of the three witnesses as a poor dumb ass who loves the world and who is destined to perish - yet it is this man's testimony that we are invited to accept in matters of supreme importance! A few pages later Smith says:
"(W)e have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (3:332)
What a recommendation! In the estimate of the "prophet" all three of the witnesses are "too mean to mention" and best forgotten - but millions are invited to accept their testimony!
Again in History of the L.D.S. Church we read the following concerning Cowdery:
"Wednesday, April 11. - Elder Seymour Brunson preferred the following charges against Oliver Cowdery, to the High Council at Far West:..."
"First - For persecuting the brethren by urging on vexatious law suits against them, and thus distressing the innocent. Second - For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith, Jun., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery. Third - For treating the Church with contempt by not attending meetings. Fourth - For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority or revelations whatever, in his temporal affairs. Fifth - For selling his lands in Jackson county, contrary to the revelations. Sixth - For writing and sending an insulting letter to President Thomas B. Marsh, while the latter was on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office as President of the Council, and by insulting the High Council with the contents of said letter. Seventh - For leaving his calling to which God had appointed him by revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of law. Eighth - For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says. Ninth - For dishonestly retaining notes after they had been paid; and finally, for leaving and forsaking the cause of God, and returning to the beggarly elements of the world, and neglecting his high and holy calling, according to his profession." (3:16)
A few verses later we are told that "The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 9th charges were sustained" and that " The 4th and 5th charges were rejected, and the 6th was withdrawn." Consequently Oliver Cowdery "was considered no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
From the same source we have the following concerning David Whitmer:
"April 13. - The following charges were preferred against David Whitmer, before the High Council at Far West, in council assembled."
"First - For not observing the Word of Wisdom. Second - For unchristian-like conduct in neglecting to attend meetings, in uniting with and possessing the same spirit as the dissenters. Third - In writing letters to the dissenters in Kirtland unfavorable to the cause, and to the character of Joseph Smith, Jun. Fourth - In neglecting the duties of his calling, and separating himself from the Church, while he had a name among us. Fifth - For signing himself President of the Church of Christ in an insulting letter to the High Council after he had been cut off from the Presidency." (3:20)
We are told that the "charges were sustained" and that David Whitmer was "considered no longer a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints." Yet we are invited to accept the testimony of such men.
James D. Bales of Searcy Arkansas has produced a photo-offset copy of David Whitmer's An Address To All Believers in Christ (with a very useful Index). The LDS church accepts Address as genuine. Whitmer wrote:
"We do not indorse the teachings of any so-called Mormons or Latter Day Saints, which are in conflict with the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as taught in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. They have departed in a great measure from the faith of the CHURCH OF CHRIST as it was first established, by heeding revelations given through Joseph Smith, who, after being called of God to translate his sacred word - the Book of Mormon - drifted into many errors and gave many revelations to introduce doctrines, ordinances and offices in the church, which are in conflict with Christ's teachings... Their departure from is also according to prophecy." (p.1)
"If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.'" (p.27)
The difficulty for those who accept Whitmer as a reliable witness is that they must also accept his testimony that the LDS church is apostate. We recall that in the Ensign article (above) Mr Oaks insisted that the "solemn written testimony of three witnesses" who are "good and honest men" is "entitled to great weight." The LDS Church insists that the witnesses returned to the Mormon fold, but whatever the truth on this matter, it is evidence from the LDS records themselves that the testimony of three such witnesses is not merely valueless, but actually harmful to the Mormon cause.
In addition to The Testimony of Three Witnesses each edition of the Book of Mormon contains The Testimony of Eight Witnesses signed by the following individuals: CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER, PETER WHITMER, JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH, SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH. In part it reads:
"Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship."
Now the existence of this second testimony creates a difficulty since in D&C 5:3 the Lord had allegedly told Smith: "And I have caused you that you should enter into a covenant with me, that you should not show them (i.e. the plates [Rex]) except to those persons to whom I commanded you; and you have no power over them except I grant it unto you." A few verses later Smith is told: "And in addition to your testimony, the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, unto whom I will show these things, and they shall go forth with my words that are given through you... And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation....And the testimony of three witnesses will I send forth of my word." (vv 12, 14, 15) Clearly then the existence of an extra eight witnesses who claim to have seen the plates creates a real difficulty.
This is not the only problem associated with The Testimony of Eight Witnesses. Interestingly the group is made up of David Whitmer's four brothers, Hiram Page who was married to the Whitmer's sister, and Joseph Smith's father and two brothers. The testimony was kept in the family it seems. We recall that according to Joseph Smith, at one time Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses, "had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain 'revelations' concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God's house." (emphasis mine) Does Page sound like the kind of stable, well-balanced individual whose testimony we would accept without reservation? We also recall that according to Joseph Smith the Whitmer family, four of whom were numbered among the eight witnesses "were believing much in the things set forth by this stone." Remember too that on another occasion Smith said: "Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."
In an Ensign article entitled True to the Book of Mormon - The Whitmers Keith W. Perkins say that "tragically, during the dark days of the Church in northern Missouri, all of the Whitmers who were still living (Christian and Peter Whitmer, Jr., died in 1835 and 1836 respectively), left the Church and never returned". (Feb. 1989, 34 [emphasis added]) Perkins tells us that "The biggest problem that seemed to afflict the Whitmers was the ancient Nephite disease, pride," and also that "John Whitmer was excommunicated 10 March 1838, for taking personal title to Church property." He adds: "Although Jacob Whitmer and Hiram Page were never formally tried for their membership, they too left the Church at this time." In short the eight witnesses appear to be of the same calibre as the three witnesses.
We close with this thought - in view of what the Mormon records themselves tell us of the eleven Book of Mormon witnesses, who would accept their testimony with any degree of confidence?
Changes to Book of Mormon
In the mid 60's Jerald and Sandra Tanner published a book entitled 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon in which they document almost 4,000 differences between the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and the 1964 edition. The Tanners point out that in 1961, Mormon historian Joseph Fielding Smith wrote an article in The Improvement Era (Dec. 1961 pp.924 -925) in which he responded to the charge that there had been "one or two more thousand changes in the Book of Mormon since the first edition was published." (3,913 Changes p.1) Joseph Fielding Smith stated categorically: "Well of course there is no truth in that statement whatever." This is simply incorrect as the Tanners demonstrate in their book of almost 600 pages which contains a photo-mechanical reproduction of the 1830 Book of Mormon. Smith goes on:
"It is true that when the Book of Mormon was printed the printer was a man who was unfriendly. The publication of the book was done under adverse circumstances, and there were a few errors, mostly typographical - conditions that arise in most any book that is being published - but there was not one thing in the Book of Mormon or in the second edition or any other edition since that in any way contradicts the first edition..." (emphasis added)
Again it is simply not the case that the errors are "mostly typographical" as Richard Lloyd Anderson points out in an article entitled By the Gift and Power of God. Speaking of "misspellings in the (original) Book of Mormon" Anderson explains: "(these) cannot be blamed on the printer, for we possess parts of the original unpunctuated Cowdery manuscript from Joseph's dictation in 1829". (Sept. 1997 [emphasis mine]) Clearly the printer cannot be held responsible for errors in the original Cowdery manuscript, and today most Mormon apologists, like Anderson, have abandoned the position any errors were typographical. Anderson for example acknowledges:
"The scribe on occasion wrote 'hart' for 'heart'; 'desirus' for 'desirous'; and 'futer' for 'future'.... These spelling errors were corrected in the recopied printer's manuscript and thus appeared in correct form in the first printing...
The first edition of the Book of Mormon carried numerous sentences with a plural subject and singular verb, and vice versa; it sometimes placed an idiomatic 'a' before a participle ('a marching') or an idiomatic 'for' before an infinitive ('for to destroy them'); it regularly used 'which' for the personal 'who'. Such language clearly originated with the Prophet as he dictated..." (ibid)
Having discussed some other matters relating to translation, Anderson opines: "This seems to indicate that Joseph Smith's assignment was to understand the ideas of the ancient language and place them, with all their nuances, in coherent English". (ibid [emphasis mine]) Thus Anderson accounts for the errors in the Book of Mormon by affirming that Joseph Smith was not guided in his choice of words as he recorded the "ideas" set down in the Book of Mormon. Our Mormon friends recognize that some explanation is required, and since the existence of the original unpunctuated Cowdery manuscript makes it impossible to maintain the typographical position of Joseph Fielding Smith, another explanation is necessary.
Now unfortunately for our Mormon friends, this attempt to account for the many changes in the text of the Book of Mormon by arguing that Joseph Smith was not guided in his choice of words as he recorded the "ideas" set down in the Book of Mormon, brings them into direct conflict with Joseph Smith and those witnesses of the Book of Mormon who acted as scribes for the "prophet." Listen to David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses:
"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...; 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 Cowdery, who was his principle scribe, and when it was written down and reappeared 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 by the gift and power of God, and nor by any power of man." (Address to All Believers in Christ, p.12) [emphasis mine]
Note that Whitmer says that one (reformed Egyptian) character at a time would appear, and that only after the English interpretation below it had been written down and checked did it disappear. The Tanners tell us that Edward Stevenson (later a member of the LDS First Council) wrote in a letter to Deseret News:
"Martin (Harris) explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used." (quoted in 3,913 Changes p.3) [emphasis mine]
Clearly it will not do to argue that Smith merely received "ideas " which he then placed, with all their nuances, in coherent English.
Joseph Smith stated that on one occasion David Whitmer and he beheld an angel holding the golden plates. The angel said: "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear." (History of the L.D.S. Church vol 1, p.54) Are we to believe that the angel pronounced as "correct" a document containing some 4,000 errors? Clearly our LDS friends have a problem: they cannot ascribe Book of Mormon errors to God, but attempts to attribute them to human weakness bring them into direct conflict with Joseph Smith and the witnesses and early church authorities.
According to Mormon historian B.H. Roberts "such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the (Book of Mormon) translation are just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in the work of one unlearned in the English language." (Defence of the Faith p.278 quoted 3,913 Changes p.4) Given the nature of the errors, the attempt to explain them away as imperfections in the Nephite original is also doomed to failure. Many examples of errors of "grammar and diction" are found in the 1830 edition. Consider for example the use of "was" instead of "were" throughout the Book. In their Mormonism Shadow or Reality Jerald and Sandra Tanner have stated:
"The following are extracts from the first edition of the Book of Mormon in which the word 'was' has been changed in later editions to 'were': '...Adam and Eve, which WAS our first parents;...' (page 15) '....and loosed the bands which WAS upon my wrists....' (page 49) 'And great WAS the covenants of the Lord,...' " (page 66) (p.92)
The Tanners also give the following examples of the use of the word "is" where the word "are" is required:
" '...the tender mercies of the Lord IS over all...' (p.7) ...there IS save it be, two churches: ...' (page 33) '...the words which IS expedient...' (page 67) 'But great IS the promises of the Lord...' (page 85) 'And whoredoms IS an abomination...' (page 127) '...his judgments, which IS just;...' (page 150)" (ibid)
"Again and again the indefinite article 'a' is used inappropriately e.g. 'As I was A journeying ...' (page 249) 'And as I was A going thither,...' ( page 249) '...as Ammon and Lamoni was A journeying thither,...' " (page 280) (ibid)
The word 'much' is used instead of 'many' e.g. '...and wild goats, and also MUCH horses.' (page 145) '...and destroy the souls of MUCH people.' " (p.217) (ibid) "People gather together 'FOR to sing,...' " (page 196); statements that 'these things HAD NOT OUGHT to be' " (p.220); incorrect use of 'wrote' repeatedly (e.g. '...I have WROTE unto you somewhat...' [page 377] '...therefore I have WROTE this epistle,...' [p. 457] and so on."
Now while the above errors are sufficient to refute claims of divine inspiration they do not affect the doctrines of the Book of Mormon in the same way that certain other alterations do. For example, it is clear that when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon he believed in one God. In Alma 11:26-28 we read:
"And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God. And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No."
Actually at this stage Smith was a modalist, meaning that he viewed the Father and the Son, not as distinct persons but as different manifestations of God. Thus we read in Ether 3:14 "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son". (cf. Mosiah 15:1-3; 16:15; Ether 4;17; Helaman 14:12) Nevertheless it is true to say that the first edition of the Book of Mormon reflects Joseph Smith's monotheism. But by the time the 1837 edition of the Book appeared, Smith had come to believe in a plurality of gods (see our tract The God(s) of Mormonism) and to accommodate his new belief that the Father and the Son are separate gods, the following changes were made to four passages in which mention is made of Jesus.
"And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." (1830 edition) "And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God". (current text [1 Nephi 11:18])
"And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father!" (1830 edition) "And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father!" (current text [1 Nephi 11:21])
"And I looked and beheld the Lamb of god, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world ." (1830 edition) "And I looked and beheld the Lamb of god, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world." (current edition [1 Nephi 11:32])
"These last records... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world." (1830 edition) "These last records... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world." (current edition [1 Nephi 13:40])
Another important change is found in Mosiah 21:28. In the 1830 edition we read "...king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings..." but this has been changed to "...king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings;..." The Tanners point out that "It would appear from chronology found in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 6:3-7 and 7:1), king Benjamin should have been dead at this time, and therefore the Mormon Church leaders evidently felt that it was best to change the king's name to Mosiah". (ibid) Mormon leaders have attempted to explain this correction by suggesting that the error was found upon the original plates, but keep in mind that according to Joseph Smith, the angel declared that "the translation of them which you have seen is correct."
A recent significant change to Book of Mormon occured in the 1981 edition of the Book. Prior to this time 2 Nephi 30:6 read:
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delight some people."
This was changed in the 1981 edition to read:
"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delight some people."
Significantly this change was made after the 1978 "revelation" giving blacks access to the priesthood. Some Mormon leaders argue that in 2 Nephi 30:6 "white" did not refer to skin color, but this will not work. In 1960 Spencer Kimball used 2 Nephi 30:6 to explain why Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people" adding that Indian children in the Utah home placement program "are often lighter than their brothers and sisters." (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-3) Evidently it is not acceptable any longer to suggest that righteous living will change the colour of a man's skin!
Those who want more on the subject of alterations to the Book of Mormon will find 3,913 Changes an invaluable source of information, but enough has been said to make the point that this work is not the fruit of inspiration, but rather the product of a frail human mind.
Miscellaneous Difficulties
Among the many other difficulties confronting Book of Mormon apologists are the following:
In sections of the Book of Mormon which supposedly pre-date the time of Christ we find phrases and expressions which echo the New Testament. The Tanners claim to have listed at least 400 such parallels including the following: KJV: the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29) BOM: the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world (1 Nephi 10:10); KJV: heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man (John 1:51) BOM: heavens open again, and I saw angels descending upon the children of men (1 Nephi 11:30); KJV: the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues (Revelation 17:1 and 15) BM: the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people (1 Nephi 14:11) (see Mormonism: Shadow pp. 74-79)
Use of the term "Christian" in the Book of Mormon prior to the coming of Christ is another problem. We are told in the Bible that the disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch (Acts 11:26) but in Alma 46:13 -16 we read of "Christians" and of "believers in Christ" long before His birth. (cf. Alma 27:27) Again, long before the time of Christ and the establishment of His church (Acts 2) Mosiah 18:17 speaks of "the church of Christ" and of "baptism." Obviously this use of the terms "Christians," "church of Christ" and "baptism" prior to the incarnation is a real problem for our Mormon friends. Keep in mind too that the Covenant of Christ could not have come into effect while the Mosaic Law was in force, and that Law was not taken out of the way until the death of Christ on the cross.
The language and style of the book of Mormon echoes that of the King James Version of the Bible, and this obvious creates a difficulty in light of the fact that Book of Mormon plates allegedly date from centuries before the printing of the KJV in 1611 AD. Why does a translation of "Reformed Egyptian" into English from ancient plates sound like the Bible with which Joseph Smith would have familiar? In his book The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon Wesley P. Walters says:
"Since the Elizabethan style was not Joseph's natural idiom, he continually slipped out of this King James pattern and repeatedly confused the forms as well. Thus he lapsed from 'ye' (subject) to 'you' (object) as the subject of sentences (e.g. 'Mos. 2:19; 3:34; 4:24), jumped from plural ('ye') to singular ('thou') in the same sentence (Mos. 4:22) and moved from verbs without endings to ones with endings (e.g. 'yields ... putteth,' 3:19)."
The use of the Greek language throughout the Roman Empire in the first century explains the presence of Greek words in the New Testament, but does not explain the use of Greek terms by the descendants of Jews who supposedly left Jerusalem some 600 BC? The term "Christ" ((b) above) means "annointed" in Greek. The words "Alpha and Omega" (3 Nephi 9:18) are Greek for "first and last" but to the inhabitants of the Americas, the expression would have been meaningless. "Timothy" a Greek name is found in 3 Nephi 19:4.
In this context another question suggests itself: "how do we explain use of the French 'adieu' (Jacob 7:27) by those living in the Americas in the 5th century B.C?"
According to a prophecy in Alma 7:10 Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem, but we know that He was born in Bethlehem as Micah had foretold. (Mic 5:2; Lk 2:4)
These and many other difficulties are real, and attempts by Book of Mormon apologists to explain them have proved unsatisfactory.
Origin of the Book of Mormon
Many of our Mormon friends are unaware of the fact that in Joseph Smith's day there was a widespread belief that American Indians were related to the "lost tribes of Israel," and they are also unaware of the fact that ideas similar to those found in the Book of Mormon were recounted in various popular books of the time. Widely-read histories and works of fiction speculated about wars of annihilation, Hebrew and Egyptian influences upon the inhabitants of the Americas, great civilizations in the Americas and so on. In the Introduction to their photomechanical reprint of a book called View of the Hebrews, by one Ethan Smith, (no relation to Joseph) Jerald and Sandra Tanner include an essay by Mervin B Hogan in which he gives a list of books which ante-date publication of the Book of Mormon and which promote the theory that the American Indians are of Jewish descent. The list includes:
"1. Origen de los Indies dcl Nuevo Mtindo, e lndias Occidentales (Origin of the New World and Western Indians), by Gregorio Garcia: Pedro Patricio Mey, Valencia. 1607. A second edition of this work was published by Francisco Martinez Abad, Madrid, 1729. 2. The History of the American Indians; etc., by James Adair; Edward and Charles Dilly, London. 1775. 3. An Essay upon the propagation of the Gospel, by Charles Crawford: J. Gales. Philadelphia. 1799. A second edition of this treatise was published by James Humphreys, Phladelphia, 1801. 4. A Star in the West; or, A Humble Attempt to discover the long lost Ten Tribes of Israel, etc., by Elias Boudinot: D. Fenton. S. Hutchinson. and J. Dunham. Trenton. 1816. 5. View of the Hebrews; etc., by Ethan Smith: Smith and Shute, Pouttncy. (Vt.). 1823. 6. The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed, by Josiah Priest: E. and E. Hosford. Albany. 1825. 7. A View of the American Indians. etc. by Israel Worsley. R. Hunter. London, 1828. 8. Antiquities of Mexico: etc., by Lord Kingsborough (in seven volumes): Augustine Aglio, London, 1830. Eighteen years later Vols. VIII and IX were published by Henry G. Bohn. London. 1848."
Hogan concludes by pointing out that "Joseph Smith was no isolated figure dealing with a unique, unusual, or new subject." The book of Mormon reflected the popular (but incorrect) views of the age.
Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews; or the Tribes of Israel in America, is particularly relevant to the study of Mormonism. Parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon are compelling. Among other things, in both books the Indians are said to be Hebrews; in both books a group breaks away and degenerates into savagery; in both books the civilized group had an iron age culture; in both books we find extensive descriptions of cities, roads, buildings etc; in both books the "savage" group wipes out the "civilized" group after long wars; in both books the inhabitants of the Americas are said to have possessed a written communication from God; in both books there is an account of the destruction of Jerusalem; in both books there are many references to both the scattering and the gathering of Israel in the last days; in both books Isaiah the prophet is quoted extensively; in both books there is reference to the use of the Egyptian language in the Americas and so on.
Many of our Mormon friends are unaware of the fact that LDS historian B.H. Roberts (1857 -1933) generally recognized as the most accomplished of all Mormon apologists, produced a list of eighteen parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. (Some researchers claim to have found more than 60 parallels). Roberts came to the conclusion that "there are many things in the former book (View of the Hebrews) that might well have suggested many major things in the other (Book of Mormon)" (Studies in the Book of Mormon p.240) He continues:
"Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin... The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon." (ibid [emphasis mine])
This is strong stuff from one who wrote (among other things) the Introduction and Notes to Joseph Smith's History of the Church. Elsewhere in the same book Roberts asks: "Could an investigator of the Book of Mormon be much blamed if he were to decide that Ethan Smith's book with its suggestion as to the division of his Israelites into two peoples; with its suggestion of 'tremendous wars between them'; and of the savages overcoming the civilized division led to the fashioning of chiefly these same things in the Book of Mormon?" (ibid p.192) He asks: "Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact, be merely coincidence?" (ibid p. 242) Speaking of anti-Christs among the Nephites, Roberts says that "they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind." (ibid p.271) This man who had earlier defended Mormonism with great skill and determination adds:
"The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." (ibid. page 271)
In light of the above, it is little wonder that the LDS Church suppressed Roberts' work for many years. Clearly Mormon authorities do not want the rank and file exposed to such statements as the following:
"In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is." (ibid p.250)
One thing is clear - the Book of Mormon is very much a product of its time, and its author was no "isolated figure dealing with a unique, unusual, or new subject." Joseph Smith possessed a vivid and creative imagination, but in many different ways the Book of Mormon betrays its human origin and reveals the prejudices, frailties and limitations of the mind which produced it. We bring this study to an end by repeating the words of Mormon Elder Bruce R. McConkie: "Either the Book of Mormon is true, or it is false; either it came from God, or it was spawned in the infernal realms." These are the only options open to us, and on the basis of the evidence it should not be difficult to make a choice.