The Book of Mormon
As we have already shown, Joseph Smith claimed that on the night of September 21, 1823, when he was seventeen years old, an angel appeared to him and stated that gold plates were buried in the Hill Cumorah. The angel explained that the plates contained “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,” and that they also contained “the fulness of the everlasting Gospel.” Four years later, on September 22, 1827, he received the plates, and sometime later he began to translate them. The translation was published in 1830 under the title of the Book of Mormon.
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt declared:
The Book of Mormon claims to be a divinely inspired record. . . . If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions . . . if true, no one con possibly be saved and reject it: if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it. . . .
If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated. . . .
But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true . . . the American and English nations . . . should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority. (Orson Pratt’s Works, “Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,” Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2)
Our study has led us to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient or divinely-inspired record, but rather a product of the nineteenth century. In this chapter we hope to state “clearly and logically” the “evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected.”
92
A photograph from Orson Pratt’s Works, “Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,” page 1. Apostle Pratt says that if the Book of Mormon is found to be untrue the facts should be published to the world.
93
The Witnesses
Joseph Smith claimed that after the Book of Mormon was translated he returned the gold plates to the angel. Therefore, there is no way for us to know if there really were any gold plates or whether the translation was correct. Smith, however, did have eleven men sign statements claiming that they had seen the plates. The testimonies of these eleven men are recorded in the forepart of the Book of Mormon in two separate statements. In the first statement Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris claimed that an angel of God showed the plates to them. The second statement is signed by eight men who claimed to see the plates, although they did not claim that an angel showed the plates to them. This statement is signed by Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith and Samuel H. Smith.
The Mormon church claims that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon never denied their testimony. There are, however, at least two statements in Mormon publications which would seem to indicate that the witnesses had some doubts. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: “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” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 164).
There is some evidence to indicate that Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses, may have had doubts about his testimony. The following appeared in a poem that was published in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons in 1841 (vol. 2, p. 482):
Or does it prove there is no time,
Because some watches will not go?
……………………………………………………
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not His word
Because denied, by Oliver?
Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that the eleven men who testified to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon had “spotless reputations” (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, p. 338). Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have made many serious charges against the witnesses. Some of the most damaging statements against the Book of Mormon witnesses, however, came from the pen of Joseph Smith and other early
94
A photograph of the Mormon publication Times and Seasons, vol. 2, page 482. In the poem that appears on this page it is stated that Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery denied his testimony.
95
Mormon leaders. In fact, Joseph Smith gave a revelation in July of 1828 in which Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses, was called a “wicked man,” who “has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises” (Doctrine and Covenants 3:12-13). In another revelation given sometime later, God was supposed to have told Joseph Smith that Harris “is a wicked man, for he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift” (Ibid., 10:7).
There is little doubt that the Book of Mormon witnesses were very gullible. For instance, Hiram Page had a peep stone which he used to obtain revelations. Joseph Smith himself admitted that Page gave false revelations through his stone and that the other witnesses to the Book of Mormon were influenced by his revelations:
To our great grief, however, we soon found that Satan had been lying in wait to deceive, . . . Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he obtained certain “revelations” . . . all of which were entirely at variance with the order of God’s house, . . . 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 . . . (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp. 109-10)
The Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 instructs Joseph Smith to have Oliver Cowdery tell Hiram Page that “those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that Satan deceiveth him.”
Although Joseph Smith was able to prevail against the revelations from Hiram Page’s peep stone, a more serious situation developed at Kirtland. Apostle George A. Smith related the following: “After the organization of the Twelve Apostles, the spirit of apostacy became more general. . . . One of the First Presidency, several of the Twelve Apostles, High Council, Presidents of Seventies, the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, Presidents of Far West, and a number of others standing high in the Church were all carried away in this apostacy . . .” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp. 114-15).
The three witnesses were finally excommunicated from the church. Martin Harris accused Joseph Smith of “lying and licentiousness.” The Mormon leaders in turn published an attack on the character of Martin Harris. The Elders’ Journal—Mormon publication edited by Joseph Smith—said that Harris and others were guilty of “swearing, lying, cheating, swindling, drinking, with every species of debauchery . . .” (Elders’ Journal, August, 1838, p. 59).
96
In 1838 Oliver Cowdery had serious trouble with Joseph Smith. He accused Smith of adultery, lying and teaching false doctrines. Finally, in Far West, Missouri, the division became so great that the Mormons drove out the dissenters. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, made this statement:
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.” In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. . . . About the same time that I came out, the Spirit of God moved upon quite a number of the brethren who came out, with their families, all of the eight witnesses who were then living (except the three Smiths) came out; Peter and Christian Whitmer were dead. Oliver Cowdery came out also. Martin Harris was then in Ohio. The church went deeper and deeper into wickedness. (An Address to all Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, pp. 27-28)
In a letter dated December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith said that “John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris are too mean to mention” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 232). Smith was very upset with David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses: “God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job. . . . 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, . . . he brays out cursings instead of blessings. Poor ass! ” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 228).
Before driving the dissenters from Far West, Missouri, the Mormons wrote them a very threatening letter. In this letter the dissenters were accused of stealing, lying and counterfeiting:
Whereas the citizens of Caldwell county have borne with the abuse received from you at different times, . . . until it is no longer to be endured; . . . out of the county you shall go, . . . depart, depart, or a more fatal calamity shall befall you.
After Oliver Cowdery had been taken by a State warrant for stealing, and the stolen property found . . . in which nefarious transaction John Whitmer had also participated. Oliver Cowdery stole the property, conveyed it to John Whitmer . . . Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson, united with a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs of the deepest dye, to deceive, cheat, and defraud the saints out of their property. . . .
97
During the full career of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer’s bogus money business, it got abroad into the world that they were engaged in it. . . . We have evidence of a very strong character that you are at this very time engaged with a gang of counterfeiters, coiners, and blacklegs, . . . we will put you from the county of Caldwell: so help us God. (Letter quoted in Senate Document 189, February 15, 1841, pp. 6-9)
The “Far West Record” contains some very important information concerning Oliver Cowdery and the bogus money business. The “Far West Record” is an unpublished “record book containing minutes of meetings in Kirtland and Far West, Missouri.” It was suppressed for many years, but recently Leland Gentry, who was working on his thesis at Brigham Young University, was permitted access to it. On page 117 of the “Far West Record,” Gentry found testimony given by Joseph Smith and Fredrick G. Williams that tended to link Cowdery with the bogus money business. Leland Gentry states:
[Fredrick G.] Williams, . . . testified that Oliver had personally informed him of a man in the church by the name of Davis who could compound metal and make dies which could not be detected from the real thing. Oliver allegedly told Williams that there was no harm in accepting and passing around such money, provided it could not be determined to be unsound.
Joseph Smith’s testimony was similar. He claimed that a nonmember of the Church by the name of Sapham had told him in Kirtland that a warrant had been issued against Oliver “for being engaged in making a purchase of bogus money and dies to make the counterfeit money with.” According to the Prophet, he and Sidney Rigdon went to visit Oliver concerning the matter and told him that if he were guilty, he had better leave town; but if he was innocent, he should stand trial and thus be acquited. “That night or next,” the Prophet said, Oliver “left the country.” (A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, p. 146)
From this information it would appear that Joseph Smith was almost an accessory after the fact, since he warned Oliver Cowdery to flee from the law if he was guilty. At any rate, Joseph Smith’s testimony was given at the time Oliver Cowdery was being tried for his membership in the church. The eighth charge against Cowdery read as follows: “Eighth—For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 16). According to Joseph Smith, the eighth charge against Cowdery was “sustained” (Ibid., p. 17). On page 147 of A History of the Latter-day Saints in Northern Missouri From 1836 to 1839, Leland
98
Gentry states: “Joseph Smith, for example, testified that Cowdery had informed him that he had ‘come to the conclusion to get property, and that if he could not get it one way, he would get it another, God or no God, Devil or no Devil, property he must and would have.’ “
Since six of the nine charges against Cowdery were sustained, he was “considered no longer a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 17). After separating himself from the Mormons, Oliver Cowdery became a member of the “Methodist Protestant Church of Tiffin, Seneca County, Ohio.” G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:
. . . Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city. . . . he was unanimously admitted a member thereof.
At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.
He continued his membership while he resided in Tiffin, and became superintendent of the Sabbath-School, and led an exemplary life while he resided with us. (Affidavit of C. J. Keen, as quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pp. 58-59)
Mormon writer Richard L. Anderson admits that Cowdery joined the Methodists: “The cessation of his activity in the Church meant a suspension of his role as a witness of the Book of Mormon. Not that his conviction ceased, but he discontinued public testimony as he worked out a successful legal and political career in non-Mormon society . . . he logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin, Ohio” (Improvement Era, January 1969, p. 56).
It is interesting to note that the poem about Oliver Cowdery denying his testimony to the Book of Mormon appeared in the Mormon publication Times and Seasons around the same time that Cowdery renounced Mormonism and joined the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin.
Some of the Book of Mormon witnesses were so credulous that they were influenced by a man named James Jesse Strang. Strang, like Joseph Smith, claimed that he found some plates that he translated with the Urim and Thummim. He had witnesses who claimed they saw the plates and their testimony is recorded in almost the same way that the testimony of the eleven witnesses is recorded in the Book of Mormon. Brigham
99
Young and the other Mormon leaders denounced Strang as an impostor, but some of the Book of Mormon witnesses became very interested in his claims. On January 20, 1848, James J. Strang wrote the following:
. . . early in 1846 the tract reprint of the first number of the Voree Herald, containing the evidence of my calling and authority, strayed into upper Missouri. Immediately I received a letter from Hiram Page, one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and a neighbor and friend to the Whitmers’ who lived near him, and that they rejoiced with exceeding joy that God had raised up one to stand in place of Joseph. . . . He goes on to say that all the witnesses of the Book of Mormon living in that region received the news with gladness, and finally that they held a council in which David and John Whitmer and this Hiram Page were the principle actors; and being at a loss what they ought to do about coming to Voree, sent up to me as a prophet of God to tell them what to do. . . . last April (1847) I received another letter from the same Hiram Page, acknowledging the receipt of mine . . . and giving me the acts of another council of himself at the Whitmers,’ . . . they invite me to come to their residence in Missouri and receive from them, David and John Whitmer, church records, and manuscript revelations, which they had kept in their possession from the time that they were active members of the church. These documents they speak of as great importance to the church, and offer them to me as the true shepherd who has a right to them . . .” (Gospel Herald, January 20, 1848)
In a letter to David Whitmer, dated December 2, 1846, William E. McLellin said that James J. Strang “told me that all the witnesses to the book of Mormon yet alive were with him, except Oliver” (The Ensign of Liberty, Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1847). Strang was probably telling the truth about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, wrote the following in his history of the church which later, however, was crossed out: “God knowing all things prepared a man whom he visited by an angel of God and showed him where there were some ancient record hid, . . . whose name is James J. Strang. . . . and Strang Reigns in the place of Smith the author and proprietor of the Book of Mormon” (John Whitmer’s History, p. 23).
Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, joined the Strangite movement and even went on a mission to England for the Strangites. The Mormon church’s own publication Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star had a great deal to say about Martin Harris when he arrived in England:
One of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, yielded to the spirit
100
and temptation of the devil a number of years ago—turned against Joseph Smith and became his bitter enemy. He was filled with the rage and madness of a demon. One day he would be one thing, and another day another thing. He soon became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another. . . . In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the “Shakers” or followers of Anna Lee. . . . but since Strang has made his entry . . . Martin leaves the “Shakers,” whom he knows to be right, . . . and joins Strang. . . . We understand that he is appointed a mission to this country, . . . if the Saints wish to know what the Lord hath said to him they may turn to . . . the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the person there called a “wicked man” is no other than Martin Harris . . . Elder Wheelock will remember that evil men, like Harris, out of the evil treasure of their hearts bring forth evil things. . . .
Just as our paper was going to press, we learned that Martin Harris, about whom we have written in another article, had landed in Liverpool, . . . there was a strangeness about him, and about one or two who came with him . . . A lying deceptive spirit attends them, and has from the beginning. . . . they know that they are of their father, the devil, who was a liar from the beginning, and abode not in the truth. (Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star, vol. 8, pp. 124-28)
Although the Book of Mormon witnesses were attracted to Strang for a short time, they soon became interested in a movement William E. McLellin (who had served as an Apostle under Joseph Smith) was trying to start. Five of the Book of Mormon witnesses definitely supported McLellin’s movement and another gave some encouragement to it. Martin Harris was baptized and even joined with Leonard Rich and Calvin Beebe in a “Testimony of Three Witnesses” that Joseph Smith ordained David Whitmer to be his “Successor in office” (The Ensign of Liberty, December 1847, pp. 43-44). The Mormons who went to Utah felt, of course, that Brigham Young was to be leader of the church. On July 28, 1847, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to David Whitmer in which he gave some support to McLellin’s ideas and told Whitmer that “our right gives us the head.” In a letter dated September 8, 1847, David Whitmer wrote to Oliver Cowdery and told him that “it is the will of God that you be one of my counsellors in the presidency of the Church. Jacob and Hiram have been ordained High Priests . . .” (Ibid., May, 1848, p. 93).
William E. McLellin tells how David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, gave revelations supporting his organization and condemning the Mormon Church:
101
. . . after a few moments of solemn secret prayer, the following was delivered solely through and by David Whitmer, as the Revelator, and written by me as scribe, viz:
“Verily, verily thus saith the Lord unto my servants David, and John, and William, and Jacob, and Hiram, . . . Behold I have looked upon you from the beginning, and have seen that in your hearts dwelt truth, and righteoness [sic]. . . . it must needs have been that ye were cast out from among those who had poluted themselves and the holy authority of their priesthood. . . . For verily, verily saith the Lord, even Jesus, your Redeemer, they have polluted my name, and have done continually wickedness in my sight, . . . Thou shalt write concerning the downfall of those who once composed my church . . .”
But here David [Whitmer] said a vision opened before him, and the spirit which was upon him bid him stop and talk to me concerning it. He said that in the bright light before him he saw a small chest or box of very curious and fine workmanship, which seemed to be locked, but he was told that it contained precious things, I was told that it contained ‘the treasure of wisdom, and knowledge from God.’ . . . David and I turned aside, and called upon the Lord, and received direct instruction how we should further proceed. . . . I ordained H. Page to the office of High Priest, . . . we two ordained Jacob Whitmer to the same office. Then we all laid hands on John Whitmer and reordained him . . . we stepped forward and all laid hands upon David and re-ordained him . . . (The Ensign of Liberty, August 1849, pp. 101-4)
McLellin’s movement never really got off the ground, and later in his life David Whitmer was reluctant to talk about his association with McLellin.
Since a person who is investigating the Book of Mormon has only the testimony of eleven men to rely on, he should be certain that they were honorable men. If the Book of Mormon witnesses were honest, stable and not easily influenced by men, we would be impressed by their testimony. Unfortunately, however, we find that this is not the case. The evidence shows that they were gullible, credulous, and their word cannot always be relied upon.
Since the testimony of the three witnesses who claimed to see the angel is especially important, we want to summarize the information we have on their character.
Martin Harris: Martin Harris seems to have been very unstable in his religious life. G. W. Stodard, a resident of Palmyra, made this statement in an affidavit dated November 28, 1833: “I have been acquainted with Martin Harris, about thirty years. As a farmer, he was industrious and enterprising. . . . Although he
102
possessed wealth, his moral and religious character was such, as not to entitle him to respect among his neighbors. . . . He was first an orthadox [sic] Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationer, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon” (Mormonism Unvailed, by E. D. Howe, 1834, pp. 260-61).
Martin Harris’ instability certainly did not cease when he joined the Mormon church. The Mormons themselves recorded that Harris “became partially deranged . . . flying from one thing to another” (Millennial Star, vol. 8, p. 124). Mormon writer Richard L. Anderson admits that Martin Harris “changed his religious position eight times” during the period when he was in Kirtland, Ohio:
The foregoing tendencies explain the spiritual wanderlust that afflicted the solitary witness at Kirtland. In this period of his life he changed his religious position eight times, including a rebaptism by a Nauvoo missionary in 1842. Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker belief, a position not basically contrary to his Book of Mormon testimony because the foundation of that movement was acceptance of personal revelation from heavenly beings. (Improvement Era, March 1969, p. 63)
If we add the “eight times” that Martin Harris changed his religious position in Kirtland to the five changes he made before, we find that he changed his mind thirteen times! Richard Anderson is forced to acknowledge that Martin Harris’ life shows evidence of “religious instability” (Ibid.). Mormon writer E. Cecil McGavin stated that “Martin Harris was an un-aggressive, vacillating, easily influenced person who was no more pugnacious than a rabbit. . . . His conviction of one day might vanish and be replaced by doubt and fear before the setting of the sun. He was changeable, fickle, and puerile in his judgment and conduct” (The Historical Background for the Doctrine and Covenants, p. 23, as cited in an unpublished manuscript by LaMar Petersen).
After changing his mind about religion many times, Martin Harris returned to the Mormon church. There is evidence to show, however, that he was still not satisfied (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 58). Joseph Smith’s own revelations referred to Harris as a “wicked man,” and the church’s publication Millennial Star said that he was an “evil” man and that “a lying deceptive spirit” attended him and his friends. Dr. Storm Rosa said, “My acquaintance with him induces me to believe him a monomaniac. . . .”
This seems like a serious charge, but the Mormons themselves said that Harris had “fits of monomania.” Harris’ wife
103
made some very serious charges against his character, but they are not actually much worse than those made by the Mormons. Mrs. Harris stated that Martin had “mad-fits.” The Mormons said that when he left the church he “was filled with the rage and madness of a demon.” She stated that Martin was a liar. The Mormons admitted that when he came to England “a lying deceptive spirit” attended him. She stated that Mormonism had made him “more cross, turbulent and abusive to me.” Joseph Smith himself later classified Martin Harris as one of those who was “too mean to mention.”
Oliver Cowdery: Oliver Cowdery was apparently rather credulous. According to Joseph Smith, Cowdery was led astray by Hiram Page’s “peep-stone.” He was excommunicated from the Mormon church and united with the “Methodist Protestant Church” at Tiffin, Ohio. In 1841 the Mormons published a poem which stated that the Book of Mormon was “denied” by Oliver. He accused Joseph Smith of adultery. The Mormons, on the other hand, claimed that Oliver “committed adultery.” Joseph Smith listed Cowdery among those who were “too mean to mention.” The Mormons claimed that he joined “a gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs.” Joseph Smith testified that when a warrant was issued against Cowdery for “being engaged in making a purchase of bogus money and dies,” he “left the country.”
Cowdery seems to have returned to the Mormon church before his death, but David Whitmer claimed that Cowdery died believing Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and that his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants must be rejected:
I did not say that Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer had not endorsed the Doctrine and Covenants in 1836. They did endorse it in 1836; I stated that they “came out of their errors (discarded the Doctrine and Covenants), repented of them, and died believing as I do to-day,” and I have the proof to verify my statement. If any one chooses to doubt my word, let them come to my home in Richmond and be satisfied. In the winter of 1848, after Oliver Cowdery had been baptized at Council Bluffs, he came back to Richmond to live. . . . Now, in 1849 the Lord saw fit to manifest unto John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself nearly all the errors in doctrine into which we had been led by the heads of the old church. We were shown that the Book of Doctrine and Covenants contained many doctrines of error, and that it must be laid aside. . . . They were led out of their errors, and are upon record to this effect, rejecting the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. (An Address to Believers in The Book of Mormon, 1887, pp. 1-2)
104
David Whitmer: David Whitmer was also very gullible. He was influenced by Hiram Page’s “peep-stone,” and possibly by a woman with a “black stone,” in Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith identified David Whitmer with those who were “too mean to mention,” and called him a “dumb ass.” The Mormons also accused Whitmer of joining with a “gang of counterfeiters, thieves, liars, and blacklegs.”
David Whitmer evidently supported James J. Strang for awhile, then changed his mind and supported the McLellin group. Whitmer was to be the prophet and head of the McLellin church. He gave a revelation in which the Lord was supposed to have told him the Mormons “polluted my name, and have done continually wickedness in my sight.” David Whitmer also claimed that “in the bright light before him he saw a small chest or box of very curious and fine workmanship.”
David Whitmer never returned to the Mormon church. Toward the end of his life he was a member of the “Church of Christ”—another small group which believed in the Book of Mormon. Just before his death, Whitmer published An Address To All Believers In Christ in which he stated:
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.’ In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p. 27)
Apostle John A. Widtsoe said that the Book of Mormon plates were seen and handled “by eleven competent men, of independent minds and spotless reputations” (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, p. 338). We feel, however, we have demonstrated that these witnesses were easily influenced by men and therefore were not competent witnesses. Contrary to Apostle Widtsoe’s statement, these witnesses were not men of “spotless reputation,” but rather men whose word could not always be relied upon. Some of them even gave false revelations in the name of the Lord. Mormons ask us to accept David Whitmer’s testimony to the Book of Mormon, but will they accept Whitmer’s revelations which he gave when he was with the McLellin group? Certainly not. Neither will they accept his statement that “God spake tome again by His own voice from the heavens, and told me to ‘separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints.’ “
105
It would appear that same of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon would follow almost anyone who had a peep stone or claimed to have been visited by an angel. Take, for instance, their willingness to believe in the claims of the deceiver James J. Strang who claimed to translate ancient plates with the Urim and Thummim. The reader will remember that Martin Harris even served on a mission for the Strangites. This was not the only time that Harris endorsed a religion which claimed to have a sacred book given directly by the Lord. As we have already shown, in the Millennial Star the Mormons admitted that Martin Harris joined the Shakers: “In one of his fits of monomania, he went and joined the ‘Shakers’ or followers of Anne Lee.” The Shakers felt that “Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our Blessed Mother in the work of redemption” (Sacred Roll and Book, p. 358). The Shakers, of course, did not believe the Book of Mormon, but they had a book entitled A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. More than sixty individuals gave testimony to the Sacred Roll and Book, which was published in 1843. Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them—one woman told of eight different visions. On page 304 of this book, we find the testimony of eight witnesses:
We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.
Betsey Boothe.
Louisa Chamberlain.
Caty De Witt.
Laura Ann Jacobs.Sarah Maria Lewis.
Sarah Ann Spencer.
Lucinda McDoniels.
Maria Hedrick.
Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the Roll and Book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from “Living Witnesses.” The evidence seems to show that Martin Harris accepted the Sacred Roll and Book as a divine revelation. Clark Braden stated: “Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon” (The Braden and Kelly Debate, p. 173).
There is a Mormon source which indicates that Martin Harris claimed to have a greater testimony to the Shakers than to the Book of Mormon. In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844,
106
“Phineas H. Young [Brigham Young’s brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization” wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: “There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon” (“Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to the Book of Mormon,” 1955, p. 52).
The fact that Martin Harris would even join with such a group shows that he was unstable and easily influenced by men. Therefore, we feel that his testimony that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin cannot be relied upon. How can we put our trust in men who were constantly following after movements like the Shakers, Strangites, and the McLellin group? We feel that the Book of Mormon witnesses have been “weighed in the balances” and found wanting.
The testimony of the three witnesses leaves a person with the impression that they all saw the angel and the gold plates at the same time. Such was not the case, however. In his History of the Church Joseph Smith admits that Martin Harris was not with Whitmer and Cowdery when he saw the plates. Joseph had the three witnesses pray continually in an effort to obtain a view of the plates, but to no avail. Finally:
Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, . . . presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates. . . .
I now left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris. . . . We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view . . . (History of the Church, vol.1, pp. 54-55)
There seems to be some question as to the time that elapsed between the two visions. Joseph Smith would have us believe that Martin Harris’ vision occurred immediately after the other vision, but according to a reporter who interviewed David Whitmer, it was “a day or two after” (The Myth of the Manuscript Found, p.83). According to Anthony Metcalf, Martin Harris claimed that it was “about three days” later when he saw the plates (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 40).
Mormon writer Marvin S. Hill says:
. . . there is a possibility that the witnesses saw the plates in vision only. . . . There is testimony from several independent
107
interviewers, all non-Mormon, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their “spiritual eyes” only. . . . This is contradicted, however, by statements like that of David Whitmer in the Saints Herald in 1882, “these hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel.” But Z. H. Gurley elicited from Whitmer a not so positive response to the question,” did you touch them?” His answer was, “We did not touch nor handle the plates.”. . .
So far as the eight witnesses go, William Smith said his father never saw the plates except under a frock. And Stephen Burnett quotes Martin Harris that “the eight witnesses never saw them. . . .” Yet John Whitmer told Wilhelm Paulson . . . that he saw the plates when they were not covered, and he turned the leaves. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter, 1972, pp. 83-84)
Marvin Hill refers to a letter written by Stephen Burnett. This document has been suppressed by the Mormon church until just recently. In this letter we find the following:
. . . when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell in heap of ruins, I therefore three week since in the Stone Chapel . . . renounced the Book of Mormon . . . after we were done speaking M Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city throught [sic] a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of—–—[him/me?] but should have let it passed as it was . . . (Letter from Stephen Burnett to “Br Johnson,” dated April 15, 1838, Joseph Smith papers, Letter book, April 20, 1837—February 9, 1843, pp. 64-66, typed copy)
Thomas Ford, who had been governor of Illinois, related a story which throws doubt upon the existence of the plates. Fawn Brodie quotes this story and then makes this statement: “Yet it is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the fact that these witnesses, and later Emma and William Smith, emphasized the size, weight, and metallic texture of the plates. Perhaps Joseph built some kind of makeshift deception” (No Man Knows My History, p. 80).
While the testimony of the eight witnesses could be explained simply by admitting that Joseph Smith had some type
108
of plates, the testimony of the three witnesses is more difficult to explain. They claimed 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. . . .” When we consider, however, how credulous and visionary the three witnesses were, even this testimony is not impressive. As far as the claim for the visitation of angels is concerned, the Shakers had a much more impressive case with their Sacred Roll and Book.
Besides the angel that appeared to the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, there were many other occasions in the history of Mormonism when angels were supposed to have appeared. Joseph Smith declared on March 27, 1836, that the Kirtland Temple was “filled with angels” (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 428). Under the date of March 30, 1836, the following appears in Joseph Smith’s history: “The Savior made his appearance to some, while angels ministered to others, . . . the occurrences of this day shall be handed down upon the pages of sacred history, to all generations; as the day of Pentecost, so shall this day be numbered and celebrated as a year of jubilee . . .” (p. 433).
Joseph Smith claimed that he and Oliver Cowdery saw Moses, Elias, Elijah and the Lord in the Kirtland Temple (see Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 110). If a person reads only Joseph Smith’s account of this “endowment” he is apt to be very impressed. William E. McLellin, however, gives an entirely different story. He claims that there was “no endowment” (Ensign of Liberty, Kirtland, Ohio, March 1848, p.69). It should be remembered that McLellin was one of the Twelve Apostles at the time the endowment was supposed to have been given. On page 7 of the same publication, McLellin joined with five others in stating that “the anticipated endowment” was “a failure!!” It is interesting to note that David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, called the story of the endowment “a trumped up yarn.” In fact, a reporter for the Des Moines Daily News stated that Whitmer absolutely denied the manifestations in the temple (in the article it reads “temple at Nauvoo,” but it must refer to the Kirtland temple since Whitmer left the church before the Nauvoo temple was built):
The great heavenly “visitation,” which was alleged to have taken place in the temple at Nauvoo, was a grand fizzle. The elders were assembled on the appointed day, which was promised would be a veritable day of Pentecost, but there was no visitation. No Peter, James and John; no Moses and Elias, put in an appearance. “I was in my seat on that occasion,” says Mr.
109
Whitmer, “and I know that the story sensationally circulated, and which is now on the records of the Utah Mormons as an actual happening, was nothing but a trumped up yarn . . .” (The Des Moines Daily News, October 16, 1886)
When we look at the testimony of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon or the report of happenings in the Kirtland temple we must remember that some of the early Mormons were very gullible and could be worked up into a state of excitement in which they actually believed that they saw visions. Apostle George A. Smith made this statement concerning an incident in the Kirtland temple: “Sylvester Smith bore testimony of seeing the hosts of heaven and the horsemen. In his exertion and excitement it seemed as though he would jump through the ceiling” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 10).
John Whitmer, who was church historian in Joseph Smith’s time, related the following concerning some of the visions that members of the church had:
For a perpetual memory, to the shame and confusion of the Devil, permit me to say a few things respecting the proceedings of some of those who were disciples, and some remain among us, and will, and have come from under the error and enthusiasm which they had fallen.
Some had visions and could not tell what they saw. Some would fancy to themselves that they had the sword of Laban, and would wield it as expert as a light dragon; some would act like an Indian in the act of scalping; some would slide or scoot on the floor with the rapidity of a serpent, which they termed sailing in the boat to the Lamanites, preaching the gospel. And many other vain and foolish maneuvers that are unseeming and unprofitable to mention. Thus the Devil blinded the eyes of some good and honest disciples (John Whitmer’s History, chapter 6).
It seems that the early Mormons could see almost anything in vision. John Pulsipher recorded the following in his journal:
One pleasant day in March, while I was at work in the woods, about one mile from the Temple, . . . there was a steamboat past [sic] over Kirtland in the air! . . . It passed right along and soon went out of our hearing. When it got down to the city it was seen by a number of persons. . . . Old Elder Beamon, who had died a few months before was seen standing in the bow of the Boat. . . . The boat went steady along over the city passed right over the Temple and went out of sight to the west! (“John Pulsipher Journal,” as quoted in Conflict at Kirtland, p. 331)
There is a great deal more that could be mentioned concerning the Book of Mormon witnesses, angels and gold plates.
110
Ancient or Modern?
In 1831 Alexander Campbell wrote concerning 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 decides all the great controversies;—infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonary [sic], republican government, and the rights of man. (Millennial Harbinger, February 1831, p. 93)
The Mormon writers George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl admit that the Book of Mormon deals “with a number of modern theological controversies,” but they claim that “Religious controversies must have been, to a large extent, the same anciently as they are today” (Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 1, p. 419). There is, of course, some truth in this statement, but there are just too many things in the Book of Mormon that are similar to Joseph Smith’s environment to be explained away in this manner.
The Book of Mormon not only makes the mistake of trying to solve all the great religious controversies of the nineteenth century, but it also contains material from books that had not even been written at the time the Nephites were supposed to have existed. For instance, the author of the Book of Mormon seems acquainted with the Westminster Confession—a document adopted by the General Synod of the Presbyterian Church in 1729. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms were a vital part of the Presbyterian faith in the nineteenth century. Alexander Campbell claimed that it was “the ‘text-book’ for the religious instruction of the offspring and households of Presbyterians” (The Christian Baptist, vol. 3, p. 42). According to Joseph Smith, his “father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith” before he produced the Book of Mormon. Since the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were sold at the Wayne Bookstore in Palmyra (see Wayne Sentinel, January 26, 1825), it is very likely that the Smith family possessed them. Joseph Smith may have heard his brothers learning the catechisms at various times or he could have read the “Confession and Catechisms.”
Although the Book of Mormon theology is not Calvinistic, certain portions of it resemble the Westminster Confession and
111
Catechisms. For instance, the Westminster Confession, chapter 32, is probably the source for Alma, chapter 40. Following is a comparison of the two:
| Book of Mormon | Westminster Confession and Catechism |
| 1. Both claim to give information concerning the state of man after death: | |
| “. . . the state of the soul between death and the resurrection . . .” (Book of Mormon, Alma 40:11) | “. . . the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection . . .” (The Westminster Confession, chap. 32, as printed in The Confession of Faith: The Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Philadelphia, 1813) |
| 2. Both state that the souls of men return to God after death: | |
| “. . . the spirits . . . are taken home to that God who gave them life” (Alma 40:11) | “. . . their souls . . . return to God who gave them” (Westminster Confession 32:1) |
| 3. Both claim that the righteous are received into a state of peace: | |
| “. . . the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, . . .” (Alma 40:12) | “. . . The souls of the righteous, . . . are received into the highest heavens, . . .” (Westminster Confession 32:1) |
| 4. Both state that the wicked are cast out into darkness: | |
| “. . . the spirits of the wicked, . . . shall be cast out into outer darkness; . . .” (Alma 40:13) | “. . . the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, . . . and utter darkness, . . .” (Westminster Confession 32:1) |
| 5. Both state that the souls of the wicked remain in darkness until the judgment: | |
| “. . . the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, remain in this state, . . . until the time of their resurrection” (Alma 40:14) | “. . . the souls of the wicked. . . . remain in. . . . darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day” (Westminster Confession 32:2) |
| 6. Both state that the soul will be united again with the body at the time of the resurrection: | |
| “. . . the souls and the bodies are re-united, . . .” (Alma 40:20) | “. . . bodies . . . shall be united again to their souls . . .” (Westminster Confessions 32:2) |
112
There are other parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Westminster Confession which we do not have room to include here.
One book which we feel may have had an influence on the Book of Mormon is Josiah Priest’s The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed, published in 1825 at Albany, New York. This book was available in Joseph Smith’s neighborhood prior to the time the Book of Mormon was “translated.” In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 84-85, we present evidence suggesting that the author of the Book of Mormon was familiar with Josiah Priest’s book.
The Wayne Sentinel, a newspaper published in Joseph Smith’s neighborhood, and a dream which his father had in 1811 may have also furnished structural work for the Book of Mormon.
The King James Version of the Bible, which was not published until A.D. 1611, probably had more influence on the Book of Mormon than any other book. Apostle Orson Pratt maintained that Joseph Smith was “unacquainted with the contents of the Bible,” but we feel that the evidence shows that Smith was very familiar with the Bible. In a manuscript which the Mormon church suppressed for about 130 years, Joseph Smith himself stated:
At about the age of twelve years my mind became Seriously imprest with regard to the all important concerns for the wellfare [sic] of my immortal Soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God . . . thus from the age twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things . . . and by Searching the Scriptures I found that . . . there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament . . . (“An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith’s Early Visions,” by Paul R. Cheesman, Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1965, pp. 127-28)
Joseph Smith began his “translation” of the Book of Mormon
113
at the time when there was a controversy over the Apocrypha. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explains:
Scholars and Biblical students have grouped certain apparently scriptural Old Testament writings, which they deem to be of doubtful authenticity or of a spurious nature, under the title of the Apocrypha. . . .
The Apocrypha was included in the King James Version of 1611, but by 1629 some English Bibles began to appear without it, and since the early part of the 19th century it has been excluded from almost all protestant Bibles. . . . the British and Foreign Bible Society has excluded it from all but some pulpit Bibles since 1827.
From these dates it is apparent that controversy was still raging as to the value of the Apocrypha at the time the Prophet began his ministry. (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 41)
When Joseph Smith purchased a Bible in the late 1820’s he picked one which contained “the Apocrypha,” and evidence seems to show that he had a real interest in it (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 72). The Apocrypha seems to solve the mystery of the origin of the name “Nephi.” While the name “Nephi” is not found in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible, it is one of the most important names in the Book of Mormon. At least four men in the Book of Mormon are named “Nephi.” It is also the name of several books in the Book of Mormon, a city, a land, and a people. Mormon scholars have never been able to find the source of this name. Dr. Wells Jakeman admitted that “there does not seem to be any acceptable Hebrew meaning or derivation for this name.” He states, however, that Nephi’s name might have been derived from “the name of the young Egyptian grain god Nepri or Nepi,” Dr. Nibley, on the other hand, feels that the name was derived from another Egyptian source. Other Mormon writers suggest entirely different sources for this name.
While Mormon writers seem to be in a state of confusion with regard to this name, the King James translation of the Apocrypha seems to settle the matter. In 2 Maccabees 1:36 we read: “And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing; but many men call it Nephi.”
It is obvious, then, that Joseph Smith must have borrowed the name “Nephi” from the Apocrypha. The name “Ezias” (Heleman 8:20) also seems to have been taken from the Apocrypha, 1 Esdras 8:2. There are many other parallels between the Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon which we do not have room to include here. Since the apocryphal books were written hundreds
114
of years after the Nephites were supposed to have left Jerusalem, the parallels tend to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is not the ancient record it claims to be.
There can be no doubt that the first books of the Bible furnished a great deal of source material for the writing of the Book of Mormon. The book of Genesis, for instance, seems to have had a real influence upon the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon. Two of Nephi’s brothers, Joseph and Jacob, have names taken from the book of Genesis. His mother’s name is Sariah, which reminds us of Abraham’s wife Sarah—also called Sarai (Gen. 17:15). Ishmael—a friend of the family—is also a name taken from Genesis (see Gen. 17:18). The name Laban is likewise found in Genesis (see Gen. 24:29).
The story of Nephi in some ways parallels the story of Joseph found in Genesis, and the story of Moses leading the children of Israel out of bondage seems to have been the source for a good deal of the material found in the first book of Nephi and the book of Ether.
The Mormon leaders claim that the Nephites had the Old Testament books which were written prior to the time they left Jerusalem—i.e., about 600 B.C. More than eighteen chapters of Isaiah are found in the Book of Mormon. The Ten Commandments and many other portions of the Old Testament are also found in the Book of Mormon. In this book we cannot even begin to list all of the verses that are taken from the Old Testament. Since it is claimed that the Nephites had the books written before 600 B.C., we are not too concerned about quotations taken from them. The Book of Mormon, however, borrows from books written after 600 B.C. For instance, the book of Daniel seems to have had some influence on the Book of Mormon.
One of the most serious mistakes the author of the Book of Mormon made was that of quoting from the book of Malachi many years before it was written. Below is a comparison of some verses which were supposed to have been written by Nephi sometime between 588 and 545 B.C., and some verses which were written by Malachi about 400 B.C. In Malachi 4:1 we read: “For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up. . . .”
In the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 22:15, Malachi’s words have been borrowed: “For behold, saith the prophet, . . . the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.”
There are also portions of 2 Nephi, chapters 25 and 26, which are taken from Malachi.
115
About 600 years after Nephi was supposed to have written these words, Jesus appeared to the Nephites and said: “. . . Behold other scriptures I would that ye should write, that ye have not” (Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 23:6). Jesus then told the Nephites to “write the words which the Father had given unto Malachi, which he should tell unto them. . . . And these are the words which he did tell unto them, saying: Thus said the Father unto Malachi—Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me . . .” (3 Nephi 24:1).
“For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up . . .” (3 Nephi 25:1).
These words, attributed to Jesus, very plainly show that the Nephites could not have had the words of Malachi until Christ came among them. The Mormon writer George Reynolds acknowledged: “As Malachi lived between two and three hundred years after Lehi left Jerusalem the Nephites knew nothing of the glorious things that the Father had revealed to him until Jesus repeated them” (Complete Concordance of the Book of Mormon, p. 442). Now, if Nephi knew nothing concerning these words until the coming of Christ, how did Nephi quote them 600 years before?
Mark Twain said that the Book of Mormon “seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament” (Roughing It, p. 110). The ministry of Christ seems to have been the source for a good deal of the Book of Mormon. For instance, the story of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead seems to have had a definite influence upon the story of Ammon in the Book of Mormon. (The story of Ammon was supposed to have taken place in “about B.C. 90,” or about 120 years before Christ began his public ministry.) Following are a few parallels between the two stories.
116
| Book of Mormon | New Testament |
| In both stories a man seems to die and a period of time passes: | |
| “And it came to pass that after two days and two nights they were about to take his body and lay it in a sepulchre . . .” (Alma 19:1) | “Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the gave four days already” (John 11:17) |
| Both Martha and the queen use the word “stinketh”: | |
| “. . . others say that he is dead and that he stinketh . . .” (Alma 19:5) | “. . . by this time he stinketh . . .” (John 11:39) |
| Both Ammon and Jesus use the word “sleepeth” with regard to the man: | |
| “. . . he sleepeth . . .” (Alma 19:8) | “. . . Lazarus sleepeth . . .” (John 11:11) |
| Both Ammon and Jesus say that the man will rise again: | |
| “. . . he shall rise again . . .” (Alma 19:8) | “. . . They brother shall rise again” (John 11:23) |
| The conversation between Ammon and the queen contains other phrases that are similar to those used by Jesus and Martha: | |
| “And Ammon said unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: . . . I believe . . .” (Alma 19:9) | “Jesus said unto her . . . Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe . . .” (John 11:25-27) |
| In both cases the man arose: | |
| “. . . he arose . . .” (Alma 19:12) | “. . . he that was dead came forth . . .” (John 11:44) |
In the Book of Mormon we read the story of a great storm which the Nephites encountered on the way to the “promised land” (see 1 Nephi 18:6-21). This story bears a remarkable resemblance to a story concerning Jesus in Mark 4:3-39.
| Book of Mormon | New Testament |
| The two stories use identical language when speaking of the storm: | |
| “. . . there arose a great storm . . .” (1 Nephi 18:13) | “. . . there arose a great storm . . .” (Mark 4:37) |
| In both stories the storm becomes so severe that the people are about to “perish,” and they seek help from their spiritual leader: | |
| “. . . my brethren began to see that . . . they must perish . . . wherefore, they . . . loosed the bands . . .” (1 Nephi 18:15) | “. . . They awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?” (Mark 4:38) |
| In both cases, after the leaders come forth, the storm ceases. Almost identical wording appears in both accounts concerning the calming of the sea: | |
| “. . . the winds did cease . . . and there was a great calm” (1 Nephi 18:21) | “. . . the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (Mark 4:39) |
117
It is very obvious that the author of the Book of Mormon has borrowed from Mark, yet the book of Nephi is supposed to be about 600 years older than the book of Mark. Therefore, the appearance of this story in the Book of Mormon proves beyond all doubt that it is not an ancient book.
One of the most striking parallels is the beheading of John the Baptist in the New Testament and the attempted beheading of Omer in the Book of Mormon. In Matthew 14:6-11 we read how “the daughter of Herodias danced before” and “pleased” Herod. When Herod promised to give her “whatsoever she would ask,” she wanted “John Baptist’s head in a charger.” Now, in the Book of Mormon we read the following:
And . . . let my father send for Akish, . . . and I will dance before him, . . . wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father . . . the daughter of Jared danced before him that she pleased him, insomuch that he desired her to wife. . . . And Jared said unto him: I will give her unto you, if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king. (Ether 8:10-12)
While the incident in the Bible happened during Christ’s lifetime, the incident in the Book of Mormon was supposed to have occurred many hundreds of years before Christ.
Wesley M. Jones points out that “the ministry of St. Paul is duplicated almost exactly in the ministry of Alma, one of Joseph’s characters—even in manner of speech and travels” (A Critical Study of Book of Mormon Sources, pp. 14-15). The reader will no doubt remember that when Paul was on the way to Damascus to persecute the church, the Lord appeared to him and said: “. . . Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4). In the Book of Mormon, Alma also persecuted the church and, like Paul, he received a vision. The “angel of the Lord” spoke to him and said: . . . Alma, . . . why persecutest thou the church of God?” (Mosiah 27:11,13). We have found seventeen interesting parallels between Alma and the apostle Paul.
As we have already shown, the Nephites were not supposed to have had the books of the New Testament because they were
118
written hundreds of years after they left Jerusalem. Nevertheless, we find many New Testament verses and parts of verses throughout the Book of Mormon. In the following list of parallels between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament we have tried to eliminate verses that also appear in the Old Testament. All of the verses from the Book of Mormon were supposed to have been written between 600 B.C. and A.D. 33. (In the following BM refers to the Book of Mormon and KJV refers to the King James Version of the Bible.)
KJV: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you (1 John 1:3)
BM: to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard (1 Nephi 1:18)
KJV: that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (John 11:50)
BM: that one man should perish than that a nation should . . . perish in unbelief (1 Nephi 4:13)
KJV: the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:5)
BM: the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts (1 Nephi 11:22)
KJV: made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14)
BM: made white in the blood of the Lamb (1 Nephi 12:11)
KJV: shall be saved; yet so as by fire (1 Cor. 3:15)
BM: shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire (1 Nephi 22:17)
KJV: O wretched man that I am (Rom. 7:24)
BM: O wretched man that I am (2 Nephi 4:17)
KJV: death and hell delivered up the dead (Rev. 20:13)
BM: death and hell must deliver up their dead (2 Nephi 9:12)
KJV: he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still (Rev. 22:11)
BM: they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still (2 Nephi 9:16)
KJV: endured the cross, despising the shame (Heb. 12:2)
BM: endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame (2 Nephi 9:18)
KJV: to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life (Rom. 8:6)
BM: to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life (2 Nephi 9:39)
KJV: Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28)
BM: Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female (2 Nephi 10:16)
119
KJV: there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)
BM: there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, . . . whereby man can be saved (2 Nephi 25:20)
KJV: the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
BM: the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world (1 Nephi 10:10); the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world (2 Nephi 31:4)
KJV: stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work (1 Cor. 15:58)
BM: steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works (Mosiah 5:15)
KJV: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory (1 Cor. 15:55)
BM: the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting (Mosiah 16:7)
KJV: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29)
BM: If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation (Mosiah 16:11)
KJV: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free (Gal. 5:1)
BM: stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free (Mosiah 23:13); stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has made them free (Alma 58:40)
KJV: Marvel not that . . . Ye must be born again (John 3:7)
BM: Marvel not that all mankind . . . must be born again (Mosiah 27:25)
KJV: come out from among them, and be ye separate, . . . and touch not the unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17)
BM: come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things (Alma 5:57)
KJV: lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us (Heb. 12:1)
BM: lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you (Alma 7:15)
KJV: I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel (Luke 7:9)
BM: I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites (Alma 19:10)
120
KJV: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14)
BM: And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come (Helaman 8:14)
The verses or parts of verses from the Book of Mormon which we have presented above were all supposed to have been written between 600 B.C. and AD. 33. Those which follow were supposed to have been written between A.D. 34 and AD. 421. In AD. 34 Jesus was supposed to have appeared to the Nephites and given them the Sermon on the Mount (see 3 Nephi, chapters 12-14). Since it is possible that Jesus could have given the same sermon to the Nephites we will not bother to list any of those verses. There are many other verses which Jesus was supposed to have given to the Nephites which are parallel to verses found in the four Gospels. We will not deal with any of these quotations in this study.
KJV: and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (2 Cor. 12:4)
BM: and heard unspeakable things, which are not lawful to be written (3 Nephi 26:18)
KJV: whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell (2 Cor. 12:3)
BM: whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell (3 Nephi 28:15)
KJV: he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9)
BM: the Lord spake unto me, saying: . . . my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness (Ether 12:26)
KJV: Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; . . . is not puffed up, . . . seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things (1 Cor. 13:4-7)
BM: charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, . . . is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things (Moroni 7:45)
KJV: For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8)
BM: For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom (Moroni 10:9)
121
KJV: to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8)
BM: to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit (Moroni 10:10)
KJV: to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:9)
BM: to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit (Moroni 10:11)
These are only a small number of the parallels between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? we listed over 200 parallels, and in another study we had a list of 400. We have found over a hundred quotations from the New Testament in the first two books of Nephi alone, and these books were supposed to have been written between 600 and 545 B.C.
One of the most serious mistakes in the Book of Mormon occurred when Christ appeared to the Nephites after His crucifixion and told them He was going to quote the words of Moses. The words which He should have quoted are found in Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 and 19:
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; . . . I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Instead of quoting these words from Deuteronomy, however, Jesus quoted from Peter’s paraphrase of Moses’ words found in Acts 3:22-26. This is very obvious when we compare Peter’s paraphrase of Moses’ words and the words Christ was supposed to have quoted to the Nephites. Below is Peter’s paraphrase as found in the book of Acts:
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:22-26)
122
In the Book of Mormon we read:
Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people. Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me. And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. The Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities . . . (3 Nephi 20:23-26)
It is obvious, then, that the Book of Mormon follows Peter’s paraphrase rather than the actual words of Moses recorded in Deuteronomy. Verses 24 through 26 of the third chapter of Acts, though slightly rewritten, are quoted in the Book of Mormon. These words have nothing to do with Moses, but are in reality the words of Peter. Peter spoke these words at the temple in Jerusalem some time after the day of Pentecost. While it is possible that these words could have been recorded at the time, the book of Acts was probably not written until twenty or thirty years later. George B. Arbaugh made the following statement Concerning this matter:
” ‘Christ’ in Book of Mormon Quotes Material Not Yet Written . . . Simon Peter here paraphrases and condenses Moses’ lengthy statement. . . . The wording is quite different from that in Deuteronomy, but the writer of the Book of Mormon failed to check on the original statement and assumed that Peter’s report of it was a verbatim quotation. Therefore the Book of Mormon quotes Acts.” (Gods, Sex, and Saints, p. 36)
It is interesting to note that Nephi—who was supposed to have written between 600 and 545 B.C.—also quoted this portion of the book of Acts (see I Nephi 22:20).
Another serious mistake made by the author of the Book of Mormon was that of having Jesus quote part of Revelation 21:6 to the Nephites. Following is a comparison of the way the words appear in the book of Revelation and the way they are found in the Book of Mormon.
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (Rev. 21:6).
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” (3 Nephi 9:18).
123
The words Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie acknowledges this fact: “These words, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, are used figuratively . . .” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 31).
The Greek language was used throughout the Roman Empire at the time of Christ; therefore, the New Testament was written in Greek and the words Alpha and Omega were well understood. The Nephites, however, were supposed to have left Jerusalem 600 years before the time of Christ, and therefore they would not have been familiar with these words. If Jesus had told the Nephites that He was “Alpha and Omega,” it would have had absolutely no meaning to them. When the author of the Book of Mormon lifted these words from the book of Revelation he evidently did not realize that they were from the Greek language. Mormon writers maintain that the Book of Mormon “does not contain any of the numerous words in the New Testament that are of Greek origin” (Contents, Structure, And Authorship of the Book of Mormon, By J. N. Washburn, p. 161). This idea is certainly incorrect. The words Alpha and Omega are definitely of Greek origin.
The Book of Mormon also contains the name Timothy (3 Nephi 19:4). Timothy is a Greek name and never appears in the Old Testament. In the same verse that we find the name Timothy we also find the name Jonas. Jonas is the New Testament name for Jonah and is found in Matthew 12:39. Joseph Smith seems to have been oblivious to the fact that the Book of Mormon contains Greek words. When it was suggested that the word Mormon came from the Greek, he stated: “This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, . . . translated the Book of Mormon” (Times and Seasons, vol. 4, p. 194). The appearance of Greek words in the Book of Mormon—especially the words Alpha and Omega—is another evidence that it is not an ancient record, but rather a modern composition.
Mormon writers have tried to explain why so much of the New Testament is found in the Book of Mormon, but we feel that their explanations are only wishful thinking. The only reasonable explanation is that the author of the Book of Mormon had the King James Version of the Bible. And since this version did not appear until AD. 1611, the Book of Mormon could not have been written prior to that time. The Book of Mormon, therefore, is a modern composition and not a “record of ancient religious history.”
124
Origin of the Indians
Joseph Smith’s mother tells that he had a great interest in the “ancient inhabitants” of this continent and that before he “translated” the Book of Mormon he used to entertain the family with stories about them: “He would describe . . . their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them” (History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, 1954 ed., p. 83).
It is not surprising that Joseph Smith would take an interest in the ancient inhabitants of this continent, for many people were discussing the question at that time. The Palmyra Register for May 26, 1819, reported that one writer “believes (and we think with good reason) that this country was once inhabited by a race of people, at least, partially civilized, & that this race has been exterminated by the forefathers of the present and late tribes of Indians in this country.”
The Wayne Sentinel, published at Palmyra, contained similar statements on July 24, 1829:
The Aborigines . . . are fast dwindling away, and will soon be buried in the depths of that oblivion which conceals the history and fate of a people who (judging from the traces discovered of the progress which they had made in civilization, and the arts and sciences, as developed by the western antiquities) must have been but a little behind the present generation in many respects. When we look at the straggling Indians who . . . reveal the ravages of intemperance and almost every other loathsome vice, we can hardly persuade ourselves that they are remnants of the powerful race of people who, as it were but yesterday, stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific . . . we may picture them in our minds as a flourishing and mighty nation . . . powerful in wealth and natural resources; combining moral and political excellence . . . and we may suppose that some dreadful plague, some national calamity swept them from the face of the earth; or perhaps that like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, their national sins became so heinous, that the Almighty in his wrath utterly annihilated them. . . .
It is interesting to note that the Book of Mormon states that the Nephites were a civilized people who were destroyed by the Lamanites—a wicked people—for their sins.
An article published in the Palmyra Herald on February 19, 1823, said that one group of people might have “crossed the Pacific Ocean, and made settlements in North America” and that the “descendants of Japheth might afterwards cross the
125
Atlantic, and subjugate” the first group. The article goes on to state: “What wonderful catastrophe destroyed at once the first inhabitants, with the species of the mammoth, is beyond the researches of the best scholar and greatest antiquarian.” There are some very interesting parallels between this article and the Book of Mormon which are discussed in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 82.
During and even before Joseph Smith’s time it was believed by many people that the Indians were the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Although the Book of Mormon does not claim that the Indians are the Lost Ten Tribes, it does claim that they are descendants of Joseph, thus making them Israelites. Because of this similarity anti-Mormon writers have suggested that Joseph Smith borrowed his idea concerning the origin of the Indians from the thinking of his time. Several books had been published prior to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon which contained the idea that the Indians were of Israelite origin. In 1816, at Trenton, New Jersey, Elias Boudinot published a book entitled, A Star in the West; or, a Humble Attempt to Discover the Long Lost Tribes of Israel. . . .” On pages 279-80 of this book we find the following rhetorical question: “What could possibly bring greater declarative glory to God, or tend more essentially to affect and rouse the nations of the earth, . . . and thus call their attention to the truth of divine revelation, than a full discovery, that these wandering nations of Indians are the long lost tribes of Israel. . . .”
Furthermore, the following was published in the Wayne Sentinel (the paper to which the family of Joseph Smith apparently subscribed) on October 11, 1825: “Those who are most conversant with the public and private economy of the Indians, are strongly of opinion that they are the lineal descendants of the Israelites, and my own researches go far to confirm me in the same belief” (Wayne Sentinel, October 11, 1825, as photographically reprinted in Larry Jonas, Mormon Claims Examined, p. 45).
One of the most interesting books on this subject which was published prior to the Book of Mormon was Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. The first edition was printed in 1823; it was soon sold out and an enlarged edition appeared in 1825. The Mormon historian B. H. Roberts read View of the Hebrews and evidently became concerned because of the many parallels between it and the Book of Mormon. He prepared a manuscript in which these parallels are listed. Mimeographed copies of Roberts’ list of parallels were “privately distributed among a
126
restricted group of Mormon scholars,” and in January 1956 Mervin B. Hogan had them published in The Rocky Mountain Mason. A careful reading of B. H. Roberts’ work leads one to believe that he had serious doubts about the Book of Mormon. Notice some of his comments:
“Query: Could all this have supplied structural work for the Book of Mormon”? (p. 20)
“Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the book of Mormon in the learning of the Jews, and the language of the Egyptians, but in an altered Egyptian”? (p. 22)
“Query: Would this treatise of the destruction of Jerusalem suggest the theme to the Book of Mormon author, is the legitimate query, since the View of the Hebrews was published seven to five years before the Book of Mormon”? (pp. 24-25)
“Query: Did the author of the Book of Mormon follow too closely the course of Ethan Smith in this use of Isaiah, would be the legitimate query”? (p. 25)
B. H. Roberts lists eighteen parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In his fourth parallel Roberts states: “. . . It is often represented by Mormon speakers and writers, that the Book of Mormon was the first to represent the American Indians as the descendants of the Hebrews; holding that the Book of Mormon is unique in this. The claim is sometimes still ignorantly made” (p. 18).
In parallel number 5, B. H. Roberts points out that the idea of the Indians having a lost book may have been suggested by Ethan Smith’s book. In parallel number 9, Roberts shows that the idea of the Lamanites destroying the Nephites and their culture could have been derived from View of the Hebrews. We cannot take the space here to discuss Roberts’ parallels, but Hal Hougey of Pacific Publishing Company, Concord, California, has reprinted them in a pamphlet entitled “A Parallel”—The Basis of the Book of Mormon.
Some new evidence concerning B. H. Roberts’ interest in View of the Hebrews has recently come to light. It has been discovered that Roberts wrote a manuscript of 291 pages entitled, “A Book of Mormon Study.” In this manuscript 176 pages were devoted to the relationship of View of the Hebrews to the Book of Mormon. The manuscript was never published and remained in the family after his death. Only a few scholars have been allowed access to it. Michael Marquardt was given the privilege of reading the manuscript and has told us of its contents. It now appears that the eighteen “parallels” were a mere
127
sampling from the longer manuscript.*
Like the Book of Mormon, the View of the Hebrews has statements concerning the color of the Indians: “Mr. Adair expresses the same opinion; and the Indians have their tradition, that in the nation from which they originally came, all were of one color” (View of the Hebrews, 1825, p.88). “The Indians in other regions have brought down a tradition, that their former ancestors, away in a distant region from which they came, were white” (p. 206).
The Book of Mormon states that the descendants of Lehi were white, but that the Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, . . . as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them” (2 Nephi 5:21).
We have previously mentioned that Josiah Priest’s book, The Wonders of Nature, may have provided source material for the Book of Mormon. It is interesting to note that this book quotes extensively from Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. Over thirty pages are devoted to “Proofs that the Indians of North America are lineally descended from the ancient Hebrews.” Priest’s book was in the Manchester rental library and was circulated constantly in 1827 by members of the library.
Changes in the Book of Mormon
In 1965 we published a photographic reproduction of the first edition of the Book of Mormon showing that thousands of changes were made in the text since it was first published. We printed this study under the title 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon.
*A false rumor concerning this suppressed manuscript has recently been circulated—i.e., that B. H. Roberts tried to answer the objections which he himself had raised in his shorter work of eighteen parallels. This idea is certainly far from the truth. We have recently had the privilege of studying Roberts’ work and have found that it not only fails to answer the objections to the Book of Mormon mentioned in the shorter work, but that it raises many new problems as well. In Part 1, chapter 14, Roberts summarizes: “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 to be found in the ‘common knowledge’ of accepted American Antiquities of the times, supplimented [sic] 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.” In Part 2, chapter 1, Roberts freely admits that “there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency.”
128
Most of the changes are related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors, but there are some that alter the meaning of the text. According to Joseph Smith’s own testimony, there should not have been any reason to make changes in the Book of Mormon. He stated that when he and the witnesses went out to pray concerning it, “We heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, ‘These plates . . . have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct . . .” (History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 54-55). On another occasion Joseph Smith stated that he “told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth . . .” (vol. 4, p. 461).
The four most important changes in the Book of Mormon are related to the doctrine of a plurality of Gods, and therefore we will deal with them in chapter 7.
Another important change was made in Mosiah 21:28. In this verse the name of the king has been changed from Benjamin to Mosiah. In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon we read: “. . . king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . .” (Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., p. 200).
In modern editions of the Book of Mormon, this verse has been changed to read: “. . . king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings . . .” (Book of Mormon, 1964 ed., p. 176, v. 28).
From chronology found in the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 6:3-7 and 7:1) it would appear that 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. Another change involving the names of Benjamin and Mosiah is found in the book of Ether. On page 546 of the first edition of the Book of Mormon we read: “. . . for this cause did king Benjamin keep them. . . .” In the 1964 edition (p. 485, v. 1) this was changed to read: “. . . for this cause did king Mosiah keep them. . . .”
It is interesting to note that even the signed statement by the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon has been altered. In the 1830 edition the last page read: “. . . Joseph Smith, Jr. the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates. . . .” In modern editions it has been changed to read: “. . . Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates. . . .”
In the first edition of the Book of Mormon, page 87, this statement appears: “. . . the mean man boweth down. . . .” In modern editions (p. 74, v. 9) this has been changed to read:
129
“. . . the mean man boweth not down . . .”
The first edition of the Book of Mormon plainly shows that it was written by a man who did not have a great deal of education, although we must admit that the writer had ability and imagination. On page 31 of the first edition we read: “. . . neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness. . . . ” In modern editions (p. 24, v. 32) this was changed to read: “Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness. . . .”
On page 214 of the first edition we read: “My soul was wrecked with eternal torment. . . .” This was changed to read as follows in modern editions (p. 188, v. 29): “My soul was racked with eternal torment. . . .”
One of the most frequent mistakes in the first edition of the Book of Mormon is the use of “was” instead of “were.” The following are extracts from the first edition of the Book of Mormon in which “was” has been changed in later editions to “were”:
“. . . Adam and Eve, which was our first parents . . .” (p. 15).
“. . . the bands which was upon my wrists . . . ” (p. 49).
“And great was the covenants of the Lord . . .” (p. 66).
“. . . the arms of mercy was extended towards them; for the arms of mercy was extended . . . ” (p. 189).
“. . . the priests was not to depend . . . ” (p. 193).
“. . . those that was with him” (p. 195).
“. . . there was seven churches . . .” (p. 209).
“. . . there was many . . . ” (p. 209).
“. . . I had much desire that ye was not in the state of dilemma . . . ” (p. 241).
“. . . they was angry with me, . . . ” (p. 248).
“. . . there was no wild beasts . . . ” (p. 460).
There are also many places where the word “were” has been changed to “was.” The following are extracts from the first edition:
“. . . it were easy to guard them . . .” (p. 375).
“Behold I were about to write them . . .” (p. 506).
“. . . and I were forbidden that I should preach unto them (p. 519).
Another common mistake in the first edition of the Book of Mormon is the use of the word “is” when it should read “are.” The following are extracts from the first edition in which the word “is” has been changed to “are”:
“. . . there is save it be, two churches . . .” (p. 33).
“. . . the words which is expedient . . .” (p. 67).
130
“But great is the promises of the Lord . . .” (p. 85).
“And whoredoms is an abomination . . .” (p. 127).
“. . . things which is not seen . . . ” (p. 315).
“. . . here is our weapons of war . . .” (p. 346).
Another common mistake in the first edition is the use of the word “a” where it was not necessary. In the following extracts “a” has been deleted in later editions:
“As I was a journeying . . . ” (p. 249).
“. . . as Amman and Lamoni was a journeying thither . . .” (p. 280).
“. . . he found Muloki a preaching . . .” (p. 284).
“. . . had been a preparing the minds . . . ” (p. 358).
“. . . Moroni was a coming against them . . .” (p. 403).
On page 260 of the first edition the following statement appears: “Behold, the Scriptures are before you; if ye will arrest them, it shall be to your own destruction.” In modern editions (p. 229, v. 20) this has been changed to read: “Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction.” A similar mistake is found on page 336 of the first edition: “. . . some have arrested the Scriptures. . . .” In modern printings (p. 297, v. 1) this has been changed to read: “. . . some have wrested the scriptures. . . .”
The extracts that follow are from the first edition; the word “no” has been changed to “any” in later editions:
“. . . have not sought gold nor silver, nor no manner of riches .” (p. 157).
“. . . they did not fight against God no more . . .” (p. 290).
“. . . neither were there Lamanites, nor no manner of Ites . . .” (p. 515).
On page 289 of the first edition this statement appears: “. . . or Omner, or Himni, nor neither of their brethren . . .” In the modern edition (p. 255, v. 1) this has been changed to read: “. . . or Omner, or Himni, nor either of their brethren . . .”
In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 90-93, we included a much longer list of changes, but the examples we have cited here should give the reader an idea of some of the more interesting changes in the Book of Mormon. Many Mormons have claimed that there have never been any changes in the Book of Mormon. Although this is certainly incorrect, some anti-Mormons have gone to the other extreme and tried to make it appear that the Book of Mormon has been completely rewritten. As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text.
131
Actually, the changes in the Book of Mormon do not even begin to compare with the serious changes found in Joseph Smith’s revelations and in the History of the Church. Although we must not overemphasize the changes in the Book of Mormon, even changes in spelling and grammar are important when we consider the claims concerning the translation which were made by Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the book. Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth,” and Martin Harris said that the words which appeared on the seer stone would not disappear until they were correctly written. Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal that in 1881 Joseph F. Smith, who later became the sixth president of the Mormon church, taught that the Lord gave Joseph Smith the exact English wording and spelling that he should use in the Book of Mormon:
Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon . . . Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. . . . The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there. . . . and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual. (“Journal of Oliver B. Huntington,” p. 168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society)
Anti-Mormon writers criticized the grammar of the Book of Mormon stating that God could not make the many grammatical mistakes found in the Book of Mormon. Finally, the Mormon church leaders became so embarrassed about the grammar that they decided to abandon the idea that God gave Joseph Smith the English that is found in the Book of Mormon; their new idea was that God just gave Joseph Smith the idea and that he expressed it in his own words. This new theory makes it easier to explain why grammatical and spelling changes were made, but it does not explain changes such as the one where “Benjamin” was changed to “Mosiah.”
Most of the more important changes in the Book of Mormon were made by Joseph Smith in the second edition, but the Mormon scholar Sidney B. Sperry admits that Apostle Talmage made many of the changes in 1920: “The writer happens to know that Dr. Talmage was a stickler for good English. . . . He
132
knew as well as anyone the imperfections of the literary dress of the First Edition of the Nephite record and took a prominent part in correcting many of them in a later edition of the work (1920)” (The Problems of the Book of Mormon, p. 190).
When a person examines the unchanged text of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon it becomes very obvious that it was written by someone without a great deal of education. The style and the type of mistakes which are found in the first edition of the Book of Mormon are similar to those found in a document written by Joseph Smith in the early 1830’s (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pp. 88-89).
133
Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
Some members of the Mormon church have made fantastic claims about archaeologists using the Book of Mormon. For instance, we are informed that a letter which was written to Earnest L. English on May 3, 1936, was duplicated and “distributed to LDS church members by leaders (local) in Cleveland, Ohio in 1959.” We quote the following from that letter:
The inquiry you made regarding the Book of Mormon is a commendable one and I will be pleased to mention the part which it has played in helping the government to unravel the problem of the aborigines. . . . it was 1920 before the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of any value. All discoveries up to this time were found to fit the Book of Mormon accounts and so the heads of the Archaeological Department decided to make an effort to discover some of the larger cities described in the Book of Mormon records.
All members of the department were required to study the account and make rough-maps of the various populated centers. . . . During the past fifteen years the Institute has made remarkable study of its investigations of the Mexican Indians and it is true that the Book of Mormon has been the guide to almost all of the major discoveries.
When Col. Lindbergh flew to South America five years ago, he was able to sight heretofore undiscovered cities which the archaeologists at the Institute had mapped out according to the locations described in the Book of Mormon. This record is now quoted by the members of the Institute as an authority and is recognized by all advanced students in the field.
Because of many false statements, such as the one cited above, the Smithsonian Institution has been forced to publish a statement concerning these matters (see photograph of this statement in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 97). In this statement we find the following: “The Smithsonian Institution
133
has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book.”
Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., of the Smithsonian Institution, elaborated further on the subject in a letter dated February 16, 1951:
In reply to your letter of February 11, 1951, permit me to say that the mistaken idea that the Book of Mormon has been used by scientific organizations in conducting archeological explorations has become quite current in recent years. It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon.
There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World.
The Smithsonian Institution has never officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of value on scientific matters, and the Book has never been used as a guide or source of information for discovering ruined cities. (Letter dated February 16, 1951, photographically reproduced in The Book of Mormon Examined, by Arthur Budvarson, La Mesa, California, 1959, p. 37)
In 1973 Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. In this article he stated:
Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples. . . . They believe that Smith could translate hieroglyphs. . . . Likewise, they accept the Kinderhook Plates as a bona fide archaeological discovery, and the reading of them as correct. 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).
In his pamphlet Archeology and the Book of Mormon, Hal
134
Hougey gives us the following information:
Latter-day Saints have only recently entered seriously into the field of anthropology, though they have “long evidenced an avid, though amateur, interest in the subject” since the earliest days of the Mormon Church. . . .
While there are today only a few Latter-day Saints with a doctor’s degree in anthropology, these few have served to curtail the extravagant claims which have been made by Mormon missionaries and by the lavish picture books published by Mormons. . . .
When Mormon missionaries and writers make extravagant claims about American archeology proving the Book of Mormon, we need only to refer them to the following statements by their own anthropologists:
“The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our people with regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological sciences.” (Christensen in U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3)
“Many times, Mormon missionaries have told their investigators that such late-period ruins as Monte Alban (periods III-V), Yagul, and Mitla were built by the Nephites and that the archaeologists would confirm this. Both claims are untrue. However, the earliest periods of the area, Monte Alban I and II, although as yet little known, are of Preclassic (i.e. Book of Mormon period) date. One may think of these earlier peoples as Jaredites or Nephites, but if so it must be on the basis of faith, not archaeology, for so far there is no explicit evidence that Book of Mormon peoples occupied this area [Oaxaca, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec area of Mexico]” (Joseph E. Vincent in U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 66, May 7, 1960, p. 2).
Christensen chides his brethren with the following comment:
“As for the notion that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology, I must say with Shakespeare, ‘Lay not that flattering unction to your soul!’ (Hamlet 111:4)” (U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).
What about the Mormon claim that non-Mormons have found the Book of Mormon helpful as a guide in locating ruins of cities in Central America? M. Wells Jakeman, Mormon anthropologist, answers this question:
“It must be confessed that some members of the ‘Mormon’ or Latter-day Saint Church are prone, in their enthusiasm for the
135
Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era” . . . (Ibid., no. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).
“With the exception of Latter-day Saint archaeologists, members of the archaeological profession do not, and never have, espoused the Book of Mormon in any sense of which I am aware. Non-Mormon archaeologists do not allow the Book of Mormon any place whatever in their reconstruction of the early history of the New World” (Christensen in U.A.S. Newsletter, no. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).
. . . We conclude, therefore, that the Book of Mormon remains completely unverified by archaeology. The claims Mormon missionaries have made are fallacious and misleading. (Archeology and the Book of Mormon, by Hal Hougey, rev. ed., 1976, pp. 4-6, 8, 9, 14)
John L. Sorenson, a Mormon archaeologist who was assistant professor of Anthropology and Sociology at BYU, added his comments concerning some of the popular Mormon books on archaeology and the Book of Mormon:
Various individuals unconnected with these institutionalized activities have also wrestled with the archaeological problem. Few of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe; others have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are Professor Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not qualified to handle the archaeological materials their works often involve. . . . As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1966, pp. 145, 149)
M. T. Lamb, a writer critical of the Book of Mormon, observed concerning archaeology and the Book of Mormon:
We shall find a great many other representations of the Book of Mormon equally at fault, squarely and flatly contradicted by the facts of ancient American history.
For instance, what can be more clearly stated than the religious condition of this country, especially Central America, for a period of over two hundred years after Christ? A Christian civilization prevailed all over both continents.
136
It is not necessary here to repeat the passages in the Book of Mormon which describe such civilization. . . . It is only needful now to show that nothing could be wider from the truth, unless all ancient American history is a lie, and its ten thousand relics tell false tales.
It may be stated in a general way that there never has been a time upon this western hemisphere within the historic period, or within three thousand years past when a uniform civilization of ANY KIND prevailed over both continents.
But this will be considered hereafter. We are to learn now—
1st. That a Christian civilization has never existed in Central America, not even for a day.
2d. 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, worshiping 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. . . . A sad fatality, is it not, dear reader, that in the very region of country where the Book of Mormon fixes magnificent temples and sanctuaries erected by a Christian people for the worship of the true God, there should be dug up out of the ruins of old temples and palaces such relics of the real religion of these ancient peoples? All the records that have come down to us make it certain that these horrid idols instead of the Lord Jesus were worshipped throughout Central America 2000 years ago. It would indeed be a bright page in Central American history if the assertions of the Book of Mormon were true. But no such bright spot can be discovered either in the Nahuan or the Mayan records. For more than three thousand years it 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)
Dr. Hugh Nibley, the most well-known Mormon apologist of the present time, tries to explain away the fact that archaeologists have not found any evidence that the Nephites or Jaredites ever existed:
Book of Mormon archaeologists have often been disappointed in the past because they have consistently looked for the wrong things. . . . People underestimate the capacity of things to disappear, and do not realize that the ancients almost never built of stone. . . .
137
Proceed with Caution!: There is certainly no shortage of ruins on this continent, but until some one object has been definitely identified as either Nephite or Jaredite it is dangerous to start drawing any conclusions. . . . The search must go on, but conclusions should wait. We are asking for trouble when we describe any object as Nephite or Jaredite. . . . Aside from the danger of building faith on the ‘highly ambiguous materials’ of archaeology and the ‘unavoidable subjective’ and personal interpretations of the same, we should remember that archaeology at its best is a game of surprises.
A Disappointing Picture: People often ask, if the Book of Mormon is true, why do we not find this continent littered with mighty ruins? . . . Where are your Jaredite and Nephite splendors of the past? . . . In the Nephites we have a small and mobile population dispersed over a great land area, living in quickly-built wooden cities. . . . Their far more numerous and enduring contemporaries, the Lamanites and their associates including Jaredite remnants (which we believe were quite extensive) had a type of culture that leaves little if anything behind it. . . . We have no description of any Book of Mormon city to compare with Homer’s description of Troy. How shall we recognize a Nephite city when we find it? (An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 1957, pp. 366, 370, 373)
In his book Since Cumorah, Dr. Nibley admits that there is no real archaeological evidence to prove that the Nephites ever existed:
From the first both Mormons and their opponents recognized the possibility of testing the Book of Mormon in a scientific way. The book described certain aspects of civilizations purporting to have existed in the New World in ancient times. Very well, where were the remains? A vast amount of time, energy, and patience has been expended in arguing about the interpretations of the scanty evidence that is available, but very little has been devoted to the systematic search for more. Of course, almost any object could conceivably have some connection with the Book of Mormon, but nothing short of an inscription which could be read and roughly dated could bridge the gap between what might be called a pre-actualistic archaeology and contact with the realities of Nephite civilization.
The possibility that a great nation or empire that once dominated vast areas of land and flourished for centuries could actually get lost and stay lost in spite of every effort of men to discover its traces, has been demonstrated many times since Schliemann found the real world of the Mycenaeans. . . .
So it is with the Nephites. All that we have to go on to date is a written history. That does not mean that our Nephites are necessarily
138
mythical. . . . But as things stand we are still in the pre-archaeological and pre-anthropological stages of Book of Mormon study. Which means that there is nothing whatever that an anthropologist or archaeologist as such can say about the Book of Mormon. Nephite civilization was urban in nature. . . . It could just as easily and completely vanish from sight as the worlds of Ugarit, Ur, or Cnossos; and until some physical remnant of it, no matter how trivial, has been identified beyond question, what can any student of physical remains possibly have to say about it? Everything written so far by anthropologists or archaeologists—even real archaeologists—about the Book of Mormon must be discounted, for the same reason that we must discount studies of the lost Atlantis: not because it did not exist, but because it has not yet been found. (Since Cumorah, Salt Lake City, 1967, pp. 243-44)
Fortunately, some Mormon scholars are beginning to face the truth with regard to Book of Mormon archaeology. Dee Green, assistant professor of Anthropology at Weber State College, has written an article for Dialogue. This article is very critical of “Book of Mormon archaeology,” and this is very significant because Mr. Green was at one time deeply involved in archaeological work at the Mormon church’s Brigham Young University. In 1953-54 he served as assistant editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, and in 1958-61 he served as editor. In his article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Dee F. Green stated:
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. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do
139
know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. 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. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 76-78)
While we found Dee F. Green’s admissions rather startling, they cannot begin to compare with the surprise we received on December 2, 1970, when we received a visit from Thomas Stuart Ferguson.
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952. . . . He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: “The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions . . . referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that “Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating.”
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were “doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham.” Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
140
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
From 1948 to 1961 the Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University sent “five archaeological expeditions to Middle America,” but no evidence for the Nephites was discovered. After these expeditions had failed, the church leaders gave “large appropriations” to support Mr. Ferguson’s New World Archaeological Foundation. This organization also failed to find evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it, hoping that it would prove Mormonism, ended up losing his faith in the church.
The Anthon Transcript
In the Book of Mormon, Mormon 9:32-33, we read as follows:
And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
The anti-Mormon writer M. T. Lamb makes some observations concerning the idea of Hebrews writing in Egyptian:
The Book of Mormon sets out with four very improbable and really absurd statements.
1. The first is that Lehi and his family used the Egyptian language. . . .
There are a multitude of reasons that make such a statement altogether improbable. In the first place, Lehi had lived all his lifetime, . . . in the city of Jerusalem, surrounded constantly by those who spoke only the Hebrew language. . . . In the second place, the Jews hated the Egyptians with a bitter hatred, and it is
141
therefore inconceivable that a true-born Jew a real lover of his own people, loyal and patriotic as he professes to have been, would have been willing thus to insult his people, or that the Jews around him would have endured the insult. In the third place, the ancient Jew had an unusual veneration for his mother tongue, the sacred Hebrew. . . . Now that such a man with such a venerated language could have accepted instead the Egyptian tongue, which was associated only with ignominy and dishonor, [is] the height of absurdity. . . .
2. The second statement is still more objectionable-that there were found in the possession of a man by the name of Laban, a relative of Lehi’s, and also a resident of the city of Jerusalem, certain brass plates upon which were engraven, in the Egyptian language, the five books of Moses, containing the law, the entire history of the Jews from the first down to Laban’s time, . . . all of the Old Testament as we have it, that had been written up to that time, six hundred years before Christ. . . . All this engraven in the Egyptian language. . . . This is more improbable and absurd than the first statement. (The Golden Bible, pp. 89-91)
Mormon writer J. N. Washburn admits that this is a real problem:
The point at issue is not that Father Lehi, the Jew, could read and understand Egyptian, though this is surprising enough. . . . No, the big question is how the scripture of the Jews (official or otherwise) came to be written in Egyptian. . . . If I were to suggest what I think to be the most insistent problem for Book- of-Mormon scholarship, I should unquestionably name this one: account for the Egyptian language on the Plates of Brass, and the Brass Plates themselves! (The Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon, p. 81)
Joseph Smith claimed that he made a copy of some of the characters on the gold plates and that Martin Harris showed them to Professor Charles Anthon, in New York. According to Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, (vol. 1, p. 20), Martin Harris claimed that “Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen from the Egyptian.” Since Professor Anthon was not an Egyptologist, and since the science of Egyptology was just in its infancy at the time, even Mormon scholars have questioned this statement about Anthon’s endorsement of the translation of the Book of Mormon (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? p. 105). In a letter dated February 17, 1834, Professor Anthon denied that he had endorsed the translation:
The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormon inscription to be reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is perfectly false. . . . the paper contained anything
142
else but Egyptian hieroglyphics. (Letter by Charles Anthon, as quoted in A Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 103)
According to Mormon historians, “a fragment of the transcript of the Book of Mormon characters” that was submitted to Professor Anthon is still in existence (see A Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 100). Egyptologists who have examined the Anthon Transcript are unable to make any kind of translation. Klaus Baer, of the University of Chicago, thinks the characters are nothing but “doodlings.” Mormon Egyptologist Edward Ashment could not identify the script (see Sunstone, May–June 1980, p. 30).
Whether Joseph Smith copied the characters or made them up, the Anthon Transcript provides no evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon because no one is able to read it. The Mormon scholar Sidney B. Sperry frankly stated that “no one, the prophet Joseph Smith excepted, has yet translated the Anthon Transcript. If modern students of Egyptians can’t do it—at least they haven’t—it is too much to believe that Professor Anthon could” (The Problems of the Book of Mormon, p. 60).
Actually, the Anthon Transcript provides a great deal of evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. M. T. Lamb stated:
The point we here wish to make is this: throughout North America, according to the Book of Mormon, this reformed Egyptian was the universal language of the people fifteen hundred years ago, when the Book of Mormon was compiled.
Now fortunately or unfortunately Joseph Smith has preserved for us and for the inspection of the world, a specimen of the characters found upon the plates from which he claims to have translated the Book of Mormon. He transcribed a few of the characters from the plates as specimens. . . .
Well, now, unfortunately for the claims of the Book of Mormon, we are able to learn precisely what kind of characters were used in Central America by its ancient inhabitants. They have been preserved in imperishable marble. Engraven upon stone in such a way as to retain to the end of time a silent though solemn rebuke to the false and foolish pretensions of the author of this book.
In the ruins of the two oldest cities in Central America, Copan and Palenque, are found in abundance the strange hieroglyphics, the written language of the people who once inhabited those old cities. Thousands of these mysterious characters are scattered about, engraven over ruined doorways and arches, upon the sides and backs of hideous-looking idols carved in stone, upon
143
marble slabs, on the sides of immense pillars, here and there through the ruins of magnificent palaces and monster heathen temples. . . .
These same hieroglyphics have been preserved in other form—for the ancient Mayas had books. . . . An examination of the three that are now known to be preserved, shows the same characters that are found upon the stone tablets, idols, etc., . . . and represent the actual written language of the ancient Mayas—a people who are known to have occupied Central America, and been the sole occupants of a portion of that country at the very time, and covering the whole period, when, according to the Book of Mormon, the Nephites lived and flourished there. . . . A woeful fatality, is it not? that there should not be even one of Mr. Smith’s characters that bears a family likeness, or the least particle of resemblance to the characters actually used by the ancient inhabitants of Central America! . . . we should find, in thousands of places, these reformed Egyptian characters engraved upon marble blocks and granite pillars. . . . But need we say that just the contrary of all this is found to be true. . . . It would therefore be sheer nonsense to imagine that the assertions of the Book of Mormon may after all have been true, but that through the lapse of time all traces of such a written language may have disappeared. Stone and marble, and gold and silver, and copper and brass are not liable to disappear in the brief period of 1500 years. (The Golden Bible, pp. 259-72)
In 1959 the Mormon archaeologist Ross T. Christensen frankly admitted that ” ‘reformed’ Egyptian” is a “form of writing which we have not yet identified in the archaeological material available to us” (Book of Mormon Institute, December 5, 1959, BYU, 1964 ed., p. 10).
John A. Wilson, who was professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, summarized the situation in a letter to Marvin Cowan: “From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America. . . . In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as ‘reformed Egyptian’ ” (Letter from John A. Wilson dated March 16, 1966).
Richard A. Parker, department of Egyptology at Brown University, added his corroboration that, “No Egyptian writing has been found in this hemisphere to my knowledge” (Letter to Marvin Cowan, dated March 22, 1966). In the same letter Richard A. Parker stated: “I do not know of any language such as Reformed Egyptian.”
In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? (pp. 108-16), we show that there have been a number of discoveries in the New World
144
which have been used to try to support the Book of Mormon. We demonstrate, however, that these finds do not support the claims of the Book of Mormon and a number of them have turned out to be forgeries.
Compared with Bible Archaeology
Apostle Orson Pratt once stated: “This generation have [sic] more than one thousand times the amount of evidence to demonstrate and forever establish the divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon than they have in favor of the Bible!” (Orson Pratt’s Works, “Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Bible Compared,” p. 64).
We feel that this statement is far from the truth. The only evidence for the existence of the gold plates is the testimony of eleven witnesses, and as we have already shown, this testimony cannot be relied upon. A comparison of the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon with the evidence for the Bible clearly shows the weakness of the Mormon position. This, of course, is not to imply that there are no problems connected with biblical archaeology, or that archaeological evidence alone can prove the Bible to be divinely inspired. Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., of the Smithsonian Institute, commented in a letter written to Marvin Cowan on January 24, 1963: “Archaeological discoveries in the Near East have verified some statements in the Bible referring to certain tribes, places, etc. On the other hand there is no way in which they could verify the narrative parts of the Bible such as the actions, words, deeds, etc. of particular individuals.” In the same letter he continues: “There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible.”
The reader will remember that Dr. Nibley frankly admitted that no ancient inscription mentioning the Nephites has ever been found, and that “nothing short of an inscription which could be read and roughly dated would bridge the gap between what might be called a pre-actualistic archaeology and contact with the realities of Nephite civilization” (Since Cumorah, p. 243).
While the Nephites are never mentioned in any ancient inscription, the existence of the Israelites is verified by many inscriptions dating back hundreds of years before the time of Christ. The “earliest archaeological reference to the people of Israel” is a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah which is now in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In The Biblical World (pp. 380-81), we find this information about the stele:
145
Merneptah, son and successor of Ramesses II, ruled Egypt from ca. 1224 to ca. 1214 B.C. . . . His campaign in Palestine, waged during the fifth year of his reign (ca. 1220 B.C.) is commemorated on a large black granite stele which was found in Merneptah’s mortuary temple in Thebes. At the top is a representation of Merneptah and the god Amun, . . . Merneptah states:
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru (i.e. Syria) is become a widow for Egypt.
The stele provides the first mention of Israel on ancient monuments, and provides proof that Israel was in western Palestine by 1220 B.C.
John A. Wilson, the noted Egyptologist, said that “an Egyptian scribe was conscious of a people known as Israel somewhere in Palestine or Transjordan.” (The Culture of Ancient Egypt, University of Chicago Press, 1965, p. 255. Copyright (c) 1951 by The University of Chicago. Used by permission.)
Many ancient inscriptions mentioning the Israelites have been found, and some inscriptions even give the names of kings mentioned in the Bible. The New Testament mentions a number of rulers that are known to have lived around the time of Christ. For instance, the Bible tells us that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. That Pilate was an actual historical person was proved beyond all doubt in 1961 when “an inscription with the name of Pontius Pilate was found in the theater excavations” at Caesarea (The Biblical Archaeologist, September 1964, p. 71).
The fact that the Jews were in Palestine at the time the Bible indicates is proven by hundreds of ancient Hebrew inscriptions that have been found on rocks, pieces of pottery and coins. Portions of every book of the Old Testament, except for the book of Esther, have also been found. These manuscripts are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition many inscriptions from other countries verify the fact that the Jews were present in Palestine.
When we turn to the Book of Mormon, however, we are unable to find any evidence at all that the Nephites ever existed. We must agree with the Mormon archaeologist Dee F. Green when he states: “The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. . . . Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jersualem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78).
146
Beyond the Book of Mormon
Although Joseph Smith once said that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book,” he departed from many of its teachings and proclaimed doctrines that were in direct contradiction to it. Although the Book of Mormon is still the primary tool used to bring converts into the Church, the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price have taken its place as far as doctrine is concerned. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that “the book of Doctrine and Covenants to us stands in a peculiar position above them all” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 198). In the chapters which follow we will show that many of the doctrines the Mormon leaders now teach are in direct contradiction to the Book of Mormon.
147