Reading the BoM�s text brings up one obvious and unavoidable question: how did so many mistakes get into it? Over 4000 changes have been made since the original 1830 edition (Check you recent copy vs. an older one). Many are minor, grammatical errors, such as "were" instead of "was" or "is" in place of "are". Others are doctrinal, and these are important! l Nephi 11:18 originally stated, "Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God." It now reads "mother of the son of God" (there are many more examples; I'll gladly give you references if you'd like) How can any of this, even grammatical errors, be explained, as this is supposed to be the worlds most correct book? Can God not spell correctly or use proper grammar? And there is no possible explanation for the theological changes: the fact that complete ideas and doctrines have been changed is a clear sign that the original writing was created by man and not inspired by God.

The BoM also defies the Bible. Actually, many times it doesn't so much defy it as agree with it too much. Over 25,000 words have been plagiarized from the King James Version. Compare Isaiah 48-49 with l Nephi 20-21, Isaiah 2-14 with 2 Nephi 12-24, Isaiah 50-51 with 2 Nephi 7-8, l Corinthians 12:4-11 with Moroni 10:8-17, Isaiah 53 with Mosiah 14, etc.

The plagiarizing is made worse, not to mention explicitly proven, in that Smith even copied the King James italics. "What??", you may ask. Let me explain. The King James Version contains italicized words, which are words that were inserted for clarification purposes that were not in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Joseph Smith copied it all verbatim and, apparently not knowing what they were, left the words italicized! There are also hundreds of quotations from the NT; this is not possible if the BoM was written in 600-500 BC as is claimed because the NT was written 600 years after that.

"I do not believe that there is a single thing of value concerning the prehistory of the American Indian in the Book of Mormon and I believe the great majority of American archaeologists would agree with me. The book is untrue biblically, historically and scientifically."

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the BoM in any way as a scientific guide. They find no direct connection between archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to the peoples of eastern and northeastern Asia.
3. Present evidence indicates the first peoples to reach this continent from the east were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the Northeastern part of N. America, never Central America or Mexico, around 1000 AD.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific findings is the fact that none of the principle old world domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the new world in pre-Columbus times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys or camels before 1492.
5. Iron, steel, glass and silk were not used in N. America before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron).
6. There were no inter-hemispheric contacts with ancient Egyptian, Hebrew or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East.
7. No claims of ancient Hebrew, Egyptian or other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Colombian contexts have stood up to examination by reputable scholars.

Any reputable, unbiased archaeologist would confirm that what I've (and the Smithsonian Institution has) written is true. Even professional archaeologists and scholars in your church confirm that there is no such evidence. Referring to the ongoing propaganda in the church about such "evidence", J.N. Washburn, a Mormon writer, has said, "Much that is cited as evidence is, in my mind, wishful thinking" (Contents, Structure and Authorship of the Book of Mormon 203). Respected Mormon archaeologist Prof. Dee F. Green has said:

"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists... no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical Archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any location for that matter) were and are... a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such and approach has left us empty-handed" (Dialogue Summer '69 77-78)

Under the "strange, but true" heading, the BoM actually contradicts LDS teachings. Not all of them, but the fact that it does at all is devastating. One of your most important practices is baptism of the dead. Unfortunately, this act is against both the BoM and the Bible--really, it is. In Alma 34:33 it states:

"...do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed (emphasis added)."

Baptism for the dead is also clearly an anti-Biblical practice. One of the main scriptures missionaries like to quote in trying to support this theology is 1 Corinthians 15:29. This is an incorrect usage of the passage. In interpreting scriptures you must look at the meaning of the original Greek (or Hebrew) words and also look at the context it was used in. In this passage, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" Unlike the surrounding context, Paul uses the third person here in order to exclude himself and true believers. If he had meant to include himself and the lot he would have used the word "we" instead of "they". So the use of this verse to try to show Biblical support for the practice is totally inappropriate. Many other verses also point to the futileness of a belief in any salvation after death (2 Corinthians 6:2, l Timothy 1:3-4. Titus 3:9, Hebrews 9:27, etc.). Baptism of the dead turns out to be a practice that the Bible and the Book of Mormon clearly are in opposition to; so why is it taught by the LDS church?

The BoM also teaches the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity: that there is only one God, made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit--they are three, yet one (2 Nephi 31:21, "... which is (not "are") one God..." Check, also, Alma 11:44, Mosiah 15:5, 3 Nephi 11:27, 36). Also, it teaches that there is only one God (Mosiah 15:1-4 and Alma 11:22, 26-29, 2 Nephi 31:21). The BoM teaches God is unchanging (Mormon 9:9-10, Alma 41:8, 3 Nephi 24:6). It teaches God is eternal, therefore could not have been a man (Moroni 7:22, Moroni 8:18). The subject of salvation, and more about God, are also relevant here, but they will be touched on later. But without getting any deeper into the subject, it seems clear that anyone who agrees with the basic theology of the BoM should have to disagree with the theology of the LDS church; they are not in harmony.

A quick note. The belief that the two sticks in Ezekiel 37 are referring to the Bible and the BoM is not correct. When taken in context, it is clear that the author is referring to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Nothing more. If you'll read down to verse 22, God explains everything quite clearly.

Before I close this section, I want to anticipate a possible argument many Mormons do, make: "But have you prayed about the BoM to see if it is true?" After all, who wouldn't be willing to ask God if this is true? Well, me. Why? Let's start with this: to test God is a sin. Let me explain. Would you pray and ask God if the Satanic Bible, by Anton LeVey, was true (No, I am NOT comparing this to the Book of Mormon in ANY way!)? No, you wouldn't, because it is blatantly false and you know it. So, to pray and ask God if it was true anyway would be wrong--you would be testing God. If an angel came and told you "Go and kill so-and-so", would you pray about it? No; neither would I, for the same reason. Or would you pray to God to have Him reveal to you if 2+2=5? No, probably not, since it is a truth that it equals 4. To ask God if it equaled otherwise, when you know that not to be true, would be foolish. Testing God is not wise, the Israelites did; they ended up wandering the wilderness for 40 years because of it. So, since I have studied the BoM and its claims and found them to be in contradiction to clear Biblical teaching, it would be very wrong for me to pray about it; to test God.

The Bible is unique in continuity, translation and survival. It was written over a 1600 year span, by over 40 authors from different walks of life, about many controversial subjects. Yet there is a unity which binds it together; it does not contradict its self.

The Bible has been translated, transmited and paraphrased more than any book in history, yet it has also survived amazingly intact. Compared to any other ancient writing it has more manuscript evidence than any 10 pieces of classical literature combined. John Lee compared it with Shakespeare: "It seems strange that the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence less than 208 years, should be far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament (abbreviated-NT), now 18 centuries old, during nearly 15 in which it existed only in manuscript." Ramon again says, "No other book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized and vilified... but somehow the corpse never stays put."

The Bible is historically reliable. There are over 13,000 manuscripts containing either all or part of the New Testament. John Montgomery states that "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the ancient period is as well attested bibliographical as the New Testament."

F.F. Bruce said, "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." Geisler and Nix said, "Next to the New Testament, there are more existent manuscripts of the Iliad (Evidence 643) than any other book...The New Testament has about 20,000 lines... the Iliad about 15,600. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the NT are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This 5% textual corruption compares with one half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament."

On the subject of the questionable lines of the New Testament manuscripts, Fredrick Kenyon states, "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading... it can not be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain." Warfield states "the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact;... nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost."

Do you how incredibly accurately the Massorites (500-900 AD) copied the text of the Old Testament? They counted the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch (that's Genesis through Deuteronomy) and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible. They counted the verses, words and letters of each book. They calculated the middle word and letter of each book, and more. They were anxious that not one jot, tittle or smallest part of a letter of the Law should pass away or be lost.

The point of this section: overly meticulous translation techniques allowed that nothing was lost! It can be most definatly stated that the Bible is the most accurately translated book in the history of the world.

"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the 19th century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been able to re-establish its authority, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."

(Another note: I have been, and will continue, quoting from Journals of Discourses. I realize that most Mormons are not taught that this is a reliable book, but that is an incorrect teaching, according to the practices of the early LDS church. The Journals was published by George D. Watt with the blessing of Brigham Young. Watt wanted his fellow LDSs to possess "the words of the Apostles and Prophets, as they were spoken in the Assemblies of the Saints in Zion." Apostle John Widtsoe vouched for their acceptance in his book entitled The Discourses of Brigham Young. President Woodruff also did so when he said "Sermons reported by G.D. Watts, one of the official reporters, were considered as reported correctly, and they are found in the Journals of Discourses; they are considered correct." The editors of the Millennial Star and Axel J. Anderson of the Deseret Book Company also agreed. Anderson stated, "If anyone tells you that the sermons found therein are not recognized by the Church, they know not what they are talking about." On the preface of Journals of Discourses, it states "The Journals of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the church". And since it was printed by the Mormons on their own presses, there seems to be no doubt that the statement was true. The reason they are not encouraged now is that many of the teachings are no longer vogue in the church, and they expose negative theology which the Brethren would rather not be public. But that doesn't change their relevancy in this, and any, discussion on the past and present theology of the church, or the hard fact that they were taught, accepted, and believed by the church founders.)

This discourse is continued in the Joseph Smith section.

Introduction / Overview / Joseph Smith / Conclusions / Resources and Keys

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws