The Book of Mormon
The Book of Mormon is often referred to as the keystone of the one’s beliefs, claimed to be a record of ancient American civilizations and a testament of Jesus Christ’s ministry in the Americas. The 2015 edition of the book’s introduction clearly makes this assertion:
The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. […]
In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. […]
Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
However, a critical examination of The Book of Mormon reveals several significant issues regarding its historical authenticity, textual integrity, and theological claims. In this section, I discuss specific claims about The Book of Mormon that I believe negate any potential for truthfulness and require the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a product of the author’s imagination.
Basic Requirements for Legitimacy
In order for The Book of Mormon to be considered true, I assert that the following claims must hold (i.e., if these claims are not true, the book cannot be true):
- The Book of Mormon was translated—not written—by Joseph Smith, and
- The Book of Mormon is theologically and logically consistent.
In the following sections, I demonstrate that the church does not uphold its burden of proof of these claims, and ample evidence supports the rejection of all four claims.
Requirement 1: Translation
The translation of The Book of Mormon is a pivotal claim that underpins its legitimacy and is central to the beliefs of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith asserted that he translated the book from golden plates, which he claimed were engraved by ancient prophets. According to Smith, these plates were discovered in the 1820s in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and were revealed to him by an angel named Moroni.
Burden of Proof and My Argument
It is the church’s responsibility to prove the claim that The Book of Mormon is a translation of a historical text. I make no attempt to disprove that claim. Instead, I argue that it is sufficiently possible that Smith did not translate it.
Specifically, I make the following arguments:
- It is possible that Joseph Smith and his associates wrote The Book of Mormon, and
- It is not probable that Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from an ancient text.
The notion that Joseph Smith likely dreamed up The Book of Mormon himself has been studied and discussed by professional researchers for generations. While I attempt to provide a rational and balanced argument, I do not have the resources to produce a comparable discussion. An astute reader should check my claims against peer-reviewed and primary sources. I encourage an exploration of the following sources, from which I have synthesized this section:
- No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn M. Brodie (1945)
- Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman (2005)
- Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet by Dan Vogel (2004)
- “The Book of Mormon: A Historical Perspective” in The Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Edition by Richard L. Anderson (2003)
- The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction by John W. Welch (2009)
- New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe (1993)
- Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon by David Persuitte (1985)
- By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion by Terryl Givens (2003)
- Early Mormonism and the Magic World View by Michael Quinn (1998)
- An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer (2002)
Argument 1.1: It is possible that Joseph Smith and his associates wrote The Book of Mormon
Occam’s Razor recommends searching for the simplest hypothesis (i.e., the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions). In the case of The Book of Mormon, the simplest hypothesis is that Smith penned the book by himself or with the help of his close associates.
Smith’s Background
It has been well-documented, including in several church-produced and above-listed sources, that Joseph Smith grew up in an educated family during a time of extreme religious excitement. Smith’s family was involved in various religious movements, and he was exposed to a wide array of religious ideas and texts from a young age. This environment fostered a culture of inquiry and debate, which likely influenced Smith’s theological development. Both of Smith’s parents were educators, and many of his family members were educated and respected individuals.
Smith’s early experiences with folk magic and treasure-seeking also played a significant role in shaping his worldview. These activities provided him with a framework for storytelling and a familiarity with the narrative techniques that would later appear in The Book of Mormon. The blending of religious fervor and folk traditions in early 19th-century America created a fertile ground for the creation of a new religious text, one that could resonate with the spiritual yearnings of his contemporaries.
Linguistic Characteristics
The linguistic style of The Book of Mormon has been a focal point in the authorship debate. Critics have noted that the text exhibits characteristics typical of early 19th-century American literature, including the use of language unique to the King James Bible and narrative structures common in that era. Smith, drawing from his cultural and literary context, may have written the book himself or collaborated with others who shared similar influences.
One of the most notable aspects of The Book of Mormon is its linguistic style, which closely mirrors that of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible and other religious texts that were prominent in 19th-century America. The frequent use of phrases such as “and it came to pass” exemplifies this biblical cadence, which was familiar to readers of the time. This stylistic choice not only reflects the religious milieu of early America but also indicates that the authors were intentionally crafting a text that would resonate with contemporary audiences.
Further, the poor quality of the writing in early editions of The Book of Mormon appropriately matches Smith’s estimated education level and experience. The book is not a literary or philosophical masterpiece; it is full of logical inconsistency and other critical issues that a keen author would spot and correct.
Literary Characteristics
The narrative structure of The Book of Mormon further supports the idea of Smith’s authorship. Scholars often point to instances of chiasmus—an ancient Hebrew literary form where concepts are presented in a mirrored fashion—within the text. For example, Alma 36 is often cited as a well-structured chiasmus, showcasing a sophisticated literary technique that suggests a deliberate composition. Additionally, the development of characters, such as Alma’s transformation from a persecutor to a prophet, reflects common narrative arcs found in 19th-century literature, emphasizing moral and spiritual growth.
The themes present in The Book of Mormon further echo the religious discourse of the early 19th century. Central themes such as faith, redemption, and the consequences of sin resonate with the revivalist movements of the time, which emphasized personal revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit. Additionally, the portrayal of America as a promised land reflects the nationalistic sentiments of the period, positioning the Nephites and Lamanites as distinct peoples with a divine purpose.
When compared to other contemporary religious texts, such as the writings of the Shakers or the works of early American revivalists, The Book of Mormon exhibits similarities in style, themes, and narrative techniques. Moreover, the narrative style and themes of The Book of Mormon reflect the folk traditions and storytelling methods prevalent in early 19th-century America. The moral lessons, allegories, and parables found throughout the text align with the storytelling practices of the time, suggesting that Smith drew upon the cultural and literary environment surrounding him. The use of familiar narrative structures, such as the journey of a chosen people and the fall and redemption of civilizations, mirrors the themes found in contemporary religious literature and reflects the revivalist spirit of the era.
The character of Nephi, for instance, embodies the archetype of the faithful leader who is guided by divine revelation. His journey from Jerusalem to the promised land serves as a metaphor for the quest for spiritual truth, a theme that resonates with the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening. This context likely influenced the creation of The Book of Mormon, as it sought to address the spiritual needs and questions of its audience.
Summary
The historical, linguistic, and literary characteristics of The Book of Mormon provide substantial evidence for the argument that Joseph Smith and his associates could have authored the text. The influence of the King James Bible, the presence of chiasmus, and the thematic elements all point to a deliberate construction that aligns with the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America. By examining these aspects, one can argue that The Book of Mormon is not a divinely inspired translation but rather a product of its time, reflecting the literary style, beliefs, and ideals of its author.
Argument 1.2: It is not probable that Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from an ancient text
The presence of anachronisms in The Book of Mormon raises significant questions about its historical authenticity and the possibility that Smith translated it from ancient records. In the context of the Book of Mormon, anachronisms are elements that do not align with the historical context of the purported ancient Americas. For instance, references to animals, technologies, and terminology indicate that the authors were likely more concerned with addressing contemporary issues than accurately depicting ancient civilizations.
Material Anachronisms
Several specific examples of anachronisms in The Book of Mormon further illustrate this point. The mention of horses in the text has been a focal point of debate, as archaeological evidence does not support the existence of horses in the Americas during the time periods described in the book. Similarly, the use of “steel” is problematic, as the technology for producing steel was not present in the ancient Americas prior to European contact. Additionally, the term “Christian” is used in the text to describe followers of Christ, which raises questions about its applicability in a pre-Christian context. Further, the character of King Noah is depicted as a ruler who indulges in excess and leads his people into sin, a narrative that reflects contemporary concerns about leadership and morality rather than an accurate historical account of ancient governance.
Linguistic Anachronisms
A significant aspect to consider in the authorship debate is the influence of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, particularly the writings attributed to Isaiah, on The Book of Mormon. Deutero-Isaiah contains themes of comfort, redemption, and the promise of a coming Messiah, which resonate throughout The Book of Mormon. However, the KJV translation of these texts is not without its errors and idiosyncrasies, many of which are reflected in The Book of Mormon. For instance, certain phrases and interpretations found in the KJV are echoed in text of The Book of Mormon text, even when they may not accurately convey the original Hebrew meanings. This reliance on the KJV raises questions about the authenticity of the translation process claimed by Joseph Smith. If Smith were indeed translating ancient records, one would expect a more direct and accurate rendering of the original texts rather than a rehashing of KJV translation errors. The presence of these KJV-specific phrases and interpretations suggests that the authors of The Book of Mormon were drawing from the familiar language of the KJV, further supporting the argument that the text was crafted in a modern context rather than being a genuine translation of ancient scripture.
Cultural Anachronisms
The portrayal of societal structures in The Book of Mormon also reflects modern concerns rather than ancient realities. For example, the text describes complex political systems, such as the reign of judges and the establishment of a monarchy, which may have been influenced by contemporary American governance and debates about democracy and authority. The character of Moroni, who leads a military campaign against the Lamanites, embodies the ideals of patriotism and sacrifice, echoing the sentiments of a nation grappling with its identity in the wake of the American Revolution.
Additionally, the emphasis on personal revelation and the quest for truth resonates with the revivalist movements of the time, which emphasized individual spiritual experiences and the importance of personal faith. This alignment with contemporary beliefs suggests that the authors were crafting a narrative that would appeal to the spiritual and cultural landscape of early 19th-century America.
Anthon Transcript
In my opinion, the most damning evidence against translation claims is the Anthon Transcript. This document, which Joseph Smith claimed to be a copy of characters from the golden plates, was presented to Charles Anthon, a classical scholar, in 1828. Anthon reportedly examined the transcript and expressed skepticism about its authenticity, stating that it appeared to be a form of shorthand rather than an ancient script. If Joseph Smith had indeed translated The Book of Mormon from ancient records, one would expect the characters to reflect a coherent and recognizable ancient language. However, the fact that Anthon could not validate the characters raises questions about the authenticity of Smith’s claims.
Furthermore, the Anthon Transcript has been described as resembling elements of 19th-century American writing styles along with convolutions of Latin characters, suggesting that it may have been created by Smith or his associates rather than being a genuine representation of ancient script. This connection reinforces the argument that The Book of Mormon was likely a product of its time, crafted within the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America, rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient texts.
Translation Process
The translation process is alleged to have involved the use of the Urim and Thummim, which Smith described as a set of divine instruments that facilitated the translation of the ancient text. However, many church members were surprised at the 2018 release of Saints to learn that Smith often dictated the text while looking into seer stones, which were placed in a hat to block out light, allowing him to focus on the words that appeared. This method of translation has been a subject of much discussion and debate, as it raises questions about honesty, authorship, and divine intervention.
The church has demonstrated dishonesty throughout its history by teaching members conflicting narratives regarding the translation process. Many church members are familiar with images similar to the following, which depict Smith’s translation process using the Urim and Thummim, essentially composed of spectacles and a breastplate.
Throughout history, the church has taught members that seer stones were not used in the translation process. Bruce R. McConkie (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) compiled into Doctrines of Salvation the following statement from Joseph Fielding Smith (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God):
SEER STONE NOT USED IN BOOK OF MORMON TRANSLATION.
[…]
While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a
seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact
that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the
history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation.
The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for
this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to
the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24.
Further, Bruce R. McConkie (still a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) wrote the following about seer (peep) stones in Mormon Doctrine, which was promoted by the church until being discontinued in 2010 due to low sales:
In imitation of the tme order of heaven whereby seers receive revelations from God through a Urim
and Thummim, the devil gives his own revelations to some of his followers through peep stones or crystal
balls. An instance of this copying of the true order occurred in the early days of this dispensation. Hiram
Page had such a stone and was professing to have revelations for the upbuilding of Zion and the governing
of the Church. Oliver Cowdery and some others were wrongly influenced thereby in consequence of
which Oliver was commanded by revelation: “Thou shall take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and
thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me, and that
Satan deceiveth him.” (D&C 28:11)
These men who professed to speak for God made God’s opinion on the matter clear: seer stones were not used in the translation of The Book of Mormon, and they are instruments of Satan to give revelations to his followers. However, the church has recently adjusted its message: a seer stone was indeed used to translate the book. The Joseph Smith Papers include a page dedicated to seer stones, and they include the following photo of a seer stone associated with Joseph Smith. Leaders throughout the church’s history not only knew of the seer stone’s existence; they had the stone in their possession. In my opinion, this serves as evidence that church leaders throughout history have wilfully misled church members about the origins of their fundamental text.
While the dishonesty of church leaders does not prove that the The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, it does raise serious questions about the motivation of church leaders. If The Book of Mormon were irrefutably true, what would motivate prophets to lie about its history? I suggest that if the church were confident about the keystone of their religion, they would have allowed the history to speak for itself.
Discussion
In conclusion, the presence of anachronisms and the alignment of narrative style with early 19th-century American literature strongly suggest that it is not probable Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon from ancient records. Instead, these elements indicate that the text was crafted to engage a modern audience, reflecting contemporary beliefs and cultural practices. By examining specific characters, societal structures, and thematic elements, one can argue that The Book of Mormon is not merely a divinely inspired translation but rather a product of its time, addressing the complex interplay of faith, culture, and literature in early American society.
Apologetic Approaches
When defending The Book of Mormon from an apologetic perspective (i.e., a perspective that forms its argument under the assumption that The Book of Mormon is true), apologists may rebut these claims using a number of familiar arguments. I present a selection of these arguments and my analysis of them; I encourage you to explore both apologetic and secular sources and determine for yourself what is most convincing.
Divine Inspiration
One common apologist argument is that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired in his translation process, which allowed him to produce a text that, while reflecting contemporary language and themes, still conveyed ancient truths. They assert that the presence of anachronisms can be understood as a result of Smith’s limited vocabulary and cultural context, rather than evidence of authorship.
While divine inspiration is a central tenet of faith for many believers, it does not provide a basis for historical or textual authenticity. The argument that Smith’s limited vocabulary accounts for anachronisms fails to address the specific instances where the text directly contradicts known historical facts. For example, the mention of horses and steel in a pre-Columbian context cannot be easily dismissed as mere linguistic limitations. Furthermore, if the text were truly inspired, one might expect a representation of ancient cultures rather than a reflection of 19th-century American society.
The Anthon Transcript as Evidence of Authenticity
Apologists often argue that the Anthon Transcript supports the idea of Smith’s translation process. They claim that Anthon’s inability to recognize the characters as an ancient language does not negate the authenticity of the golden plates, as they could have been written in a language that was not familiar to him.
While it is true that Anthon’s assessment does not definitively disprove the existence of the golden plates, it raises significant questions about their authenticity. If the characters on the Anthon Transcript were indeed representative of an ancient language, one would expect a scholar of Anthon’s caliber to recognize them. Further, modern scholars would surely be able to recognize and parse the language. The fact that he described them as resembling shorthand suggests that they may have been fabricated or adapted from contemporary writing styles. This undermines the claim that Smith was translating genuine ancient texts. Further, inspection of the transcript from a modern perspective reveals that the characters are most likely a convoluted representation of Latin characters, and Reformed Egyptian, the language the characters were alleged to represent, likely never existed.
The Literary Style as Evidence of Ancient Origins
Another apologist response is that the literary style of The Book of Mormon, including its use of chiasmus and other literary devices, indicates a sophisticated authorship that could not have been achieved by Smith alone. They argue that these features point to an ancient origin and suggest that Smith was merely the instrument through which these ancient writings were revealed.
While the presence of chiasmus and other literary devices is noteworthy, it does not necessarily imply ancient authorship. Literary techniques can be employed by writers of any era, and the use of such devices in The Book of Mormon can be seen as reflective of the literary culture of early 19th-century America. Furthermore, the argument that Smith could not have produced such a text overlooks the possibility that he was influenced by the literary styles and themes prevalent in his time. The sophistication of the text may be more indicative of Smith’s ability to draw from contemporary sources rather than evidence of divine inspiration or ancient origins.
The Context of Anachronisms
Apologists often contend that the anachronisms found in The Book of Mormon can be reconciled with the idea of a translation process, arguing that these elements may have been included to make the text relatable to its audience. They suggest that the use of familiar terms and concepts was a deliberate choice to facilitate understanding.
While it is reasonable to assume that a translator might use familiar language to engage an audience, the extent and nature of the anachronisms in The Book of Mormon raise serious concerns about its historical accuracy. The inclusion of terms and concepts that are not merely relatable but fundamentally inaccurate in the context of ancient America suggests a lack of authenticity. If the text were genuinely a translation of ancient records, one would expect a greater effort to maintain historical integrity rather than adapting the narrative to fit contemporary understandings.
Discussion
In summary, while apologists present various arguments to defend the authenticity of The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s role as a translator, these responses often fall short when scrutinized against the evidence. The presence of anachronisms, the implications of the Anthon Transcript, and the literary style of the text all point toward the conclusion that The Book of Mormon is more likely a product of its time, crafted within the cultural and literary context of early 19th-century America, rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient scripture.
Requirement 2: Consistency
Self-contradictions (also known as logical inconsistency) are damning evidence against assertions of truth. Two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true. A book with claims as significant as The Book of Mormon’s ought to be logically consistent, especially because the book is purported to be inspired by God. Proponents argue that the text presents a coherent theological system, with consistent teachings about God, Jesus Christ, and the principles of salvation. They assert that this internal consistency is indicative of divine inspiration and supports the idea that the book is a legitimate scripture.
Burden of Proof and My Argument
It is the church’s responsibility to demonstrate the logical consistency of The Book of Mormon. Moreover, a single counterexample to the claim (i.e., a single example of logical inconsistency) invalidates the claim. That is, if there exists any pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon, the book is not logically consistent, and cannot be determined to be true.
I make the following argument:
- There exists at least one pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon.
Argument 2.1: There exists at least one pair of contradicting assertions in The Book of Mormon
Supporters of The Book of Mormon often point to its central themes, such as faith, repentance, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ, as evidence of its theological coherence. The text emphasizes the importance of personal revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit, which aligns with the teachings of the Bible and provides a unified message about the nature of God and His relationship with humanity. Additionally, the narrative of Christ’s visit to the Americas after His resurrection is presented as a fulfillment of prophecy, reinforcing the idea of a consistent divine plan. However, a closer examination reveals several minor and major logical inconsistencies within The Book of Mormon that challenge the claim of theological coherence.
Major Inconsistency: The Nature of the Godhead
The text presents differing accounts of the nature of God and the Godhead. While it emphasizes the oneness of God in some passages, it also describes the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct beings, which can lead to confusion regarding the nature of the divine. This matches Smith’s own apparent confusion regarding this topic, as evidenced by contradictions within his First Vision accounts. This inconsistency raises questions about the clarity of the theological framework presented in the text. Consider the following verses, which contradict modern editions of The Book of Mormon:
Ether 3:14 (1830 Edition). Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
1 Nephi 11:21 (1830 Edition). And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 Edition). And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which is of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world;
Major Inconsistency: The Nature of Hell
For Latter-Day Saints, the nature of the afterlife clear: all of God’s children, including those who are not valiant, receive one of the three kingdoms of glory. There is also a hell-like place designated for certain people. In modernity, the church teaches that denying the Holy Ghost is the only unpardonable sin. However, three verses in The Book of Mormon contradict each other and this teaching:
2 Nephi 9:34. Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.
2 Nephi 28:15. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
3 Nephi 27:11. But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.
Moroni 8:20-21. And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption. Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.
Mosiah 16:11. If they be good, to the resurrection of endless life and happiness; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of endless damnation, being delivered up to the devil, who hath subjected them, which is damnation.
Major Inconsistency: Nephi’s Building Materials
The book of 2 Nephi reads as if the author forgot what they were writing halfway through and attempted to carry on regardless. Consider the following verse, detailing the abundant temple-building supplies available to the people:
2 Nephi 5:15. And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Just one verse later, those materials seem to have disappeared:
2 Nephi 5:16. And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.
Major Inconsistency: Baptismal Prayers
Modern church members understand that ordinances like baptism are accompanied by prayers that must be recited verbatim. Consider the following contradictory baptismal prayers from The Book of Mormon:
3 Nephi 11:24-25. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Mosiah 18:12-14. And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart. And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world. And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.
Major Inconsistency: Prophecies
The text contains numerous prophecies regarding the coming of Christ and the establishment of His church among the Nephites. However, the fulfillment of these prophecies is often vague or inconsistent. For instance, Christ visits the Americas after His resurrection, yet the details of His teachings and the establishment of His church among the Nephites are not consistently followed in subsequent chapters. This raises questions about the reliability of prophetic fulfillment within the narrative.
Minor Inconsistency: Continuity of Prophets
The account of the Jaredites presents a civilization that existed prior to the Nephites and Lamanites. However, the text does not provide a clear connection between these two groups, leading to confusion about the historical timeline and the continuity of prophetic leadership. The lack of integration between the Jaredite and Nephite narratives creates logical inconsistencies regarding the overarching story of God’s dealings with His people.
Minor Inconsistency: Black-and-White Thinking
The ongoing conflict between the Nephites and Lamanites is a central theme in The Book of Mormon. However, the text often portrays one group as inherently wicked and cursed, while the other is depicted as the righteous. This binary view oversimplifies the complexities of human nature and morality.
Minor Inconsistency: Moral Dilemmas
The character of Moroni, who is depicted as a righteous leader, engages in acts of violence and warfare. For instance, Moroni is praised for his military prowess and willingness to defend his people, yet this portrayal conflicts with the teachings of Christ about love and non-violence. This inconsistency raises questions about the moral framework presented in the text and whether it aligns with the principles of peace and charity emphasized elsewhere. This inconsistency is somewhat weak, as throughout the Bible, God’s nature is occasionally ruthless and violent.
Minor Inconsistency: Role of Prophets
The text discusses the establishment of a system of judges to govern the people, suggesting a shift away from prophetic leadership. However, this raises questions about the role of prophets in guiding the people. If prophets are divinely appointed to lead, why would the people choose a system that could potentially lead to corruption and injustice? This inconsistency challenges the idea that prophetic guidance is the best form of governance, but it does not necessarily demonstrate a strong logical consistency within the text.
Summary
While proponents of The Book of Mormon argue for its theological and logical consistency, a critical examination reveals inconsistencies that challenge this claim. The wide range of contradictory statements contribute to a lack of coherence in the text. As such, the assertion that The Book of Mormon is a logically consistent and theologically sound scripture is called into question, further supporting the argument that it is likely a product of its time rather than a divinely inspired translation of ancient records.
Apologetic Approaches
In response to criticisms regarding logical consistency, apologists may argue that the complexities of divine nature and human morality cannot be fully understood by mortals. They may assert that apparent contradictions are simply reflections of the limitations of human understanding and that the divine plan is ultimately beyond comprehension.
Contextual Interpretation
Apologists often contend that ,any apparent contradictions in The Book of Mormon can be reconciled through a contextual understanding of the text, which reflects the complexities of divine nature and human experience.
While context can provide insight, it does not eliminate the contradictions themselves. If the text is divinely inspired, one would expect a higher degree of clarity and consistency. Contextual interpretations often rely on subjective reasoning, which can lead to varying conclusions rather than a definitive resolution of the inconsistencies.
Progressive Revelation
Some claim that Joseph Smith’s evolving understanding of doctrine, including the nature of the Godhead, reflects a process of progressive revelation rather than confusion.
Progressive revelation should ideally lead to greater clarity and coherence over time. Instead, it raises questions about the reliability of divine guidance if foundational doctrines are subject to change. If God is unchanging, then the nature of His revelations should also be consistent, which is not evident in the varying accounts.
Different Perspectives
Apologists often suggest that the differing accounts of events or teachings in The Book of Mormon can be attributed to the perspectives of different authors or narrators, each providing their unique insights.
While multiple perspectives can enrich a narrative, they should not lead to outright contradictions. If the core message is divinely inspired, the authors should be in harmony regarding essential doctrines and teachings. Discrepancies that lead to confusion undermine the text’s claim to divine origin.
Symbolic Language
Some suggest that inconsistencies are due to the use of symbolic or metaphorical language, which may not be intended to be taken literally.
While symbolism can be a valid literary device, it should not serve as a catch-all explanation for contradictions. If key doctrines and teachings are obscured by symbolism, it raises concerns about the clarity and accessibility of the message. A divinely inspired text should communicate essential truths in a way that is understandable to its intended audience.
The Importance of Faith
Faith is said to be essential in understanding The Book of Mormon, and believers should trust in its divine origin despite apparent inconsistencies.
While faith is a personal journey, it should not be used as a substitute for critical examination of the text. Faith in a text that contains glaring inconsistencies can lead to cognitive dissonance and a lack of intellectual integrity. A truly divine text should withstand scrutiny and provide a coherent framework for belief.
Historical Context
Apologists argue that the historical context of the time when The Book of Mormon was written accounts for some of the inconsistencies, as the authors were influenced by their cultural and societal norms.
While historical context can influence writing, it should not excuse fundamental contradictions in doctrine or narrative. If the text claims to be a record of divine revelation, it should transcend cultural limitations and provide a consistent and universal message. Inconsistencies that arise from historical context may suggest a human origin rather than divine inspiration.
Personal Revelation
From an apologetic perspective, personal revelation and individual interpretation play a crucial role in understanding The Book of Mormon, allowing believers to find personal meaning in the text.
While personal experience is significant, it can lead to subjective interpretations that vary widely among individuals. This subjectivity can create a fragmented understanding of the text, undermining its claim to be a unified and coherent message from God. A divinely inspired text should provide a clear and consistent foundation for all believers, rather than relying on individual interpretations that may conflict with one another.
Discussion
In conclusion, because apologetic approaches tend to ignore consistencies altogether in favor of another argument, they are often guilty of a straw man fallacy. No amount of special pleading can remove inconsistencies from the text, so The Book of Mormon appears to be a 19th century construction rather than a divinely-inspired historical record.
Conclusion
Because The Book of Mormon does not meet either basic requirement for legitimacy, I personally conclude that The Book of Mormon is most likely a 19th century work of fiction, rather than an inspired text about ancient peoples. Some suggest, upon determining the book is not true, that truth is not the priority; The Book of Mormon teaches good principles, so it must be divinely inspired.
True vs. Good
Upon determining that The Book of Mormon is not true, some people suggest that truth is not the main concern; if the book teaches good principles, that is good enough. This perspective raises important questions about the nature of truth and morality.
Truth Matters
While it is undeniable that many texts, including The Book of Mormon, contain valuable moral teachings and principles that promote kindness, charity, and integrity, the distinction between truth and goodness is crucial. Good principles can be found in various philosophical, religious, and literary works, but the source of those principles matters significantly when evaluating their legitimacy and authority.
Truth serves as the foundation for moral principles, particularly among Latter-Day Saints. If a foundational text is based on falsehoods or historical inaccuracies, the ethical teachings derived from it may also be called into question. For example, if the narratives within The Book of Mormon are fictional, the context in which those moral lessons are presented may lack the authenticity that gives them weight. A moral principle that is not grounded in truth risks becoming subjective and open to manipulation.
Moral Relativism
Emphasizing good principles over truth can lead to moral relativism, where the validity of ethical teachings becomes dependent on individual interpretation rather than objective standards. This can create a slippery slope where any text, regardless of its veracity, could be justified as a source of moral guidance. If we accept that a work is divinely inspired solely based on its moral teachings, we may inadvertently endorse ideas that conflict with established truths or lead to harmful consequences.
The claim of divine inspiration carries with it the expectation of truthfulness and reliability. If The Book of Mormon is viewed as a divinely inspired text, it should provide a consistent and truthful account of spiritual and moral principles. When the truth of the text is called into question, it undermines the credibility of its teachings. A truly inspired work should not only promote good principles but also be rooted in historical and factual accuracy, or religious leaders should be honest about the book’s origin.
Alternative Sources of Goodness
There are numerous sources of moral guidance that are both true and beneficial including philosophical works and ethical frameworks. By prioritizing truth, individuals can seek out teachings that are not only good but also grounded in reality. This approach allows for a more robust understanding of morality that is less susceptible to the pitfalls of false narratives.
Many historical and philosophical texts provide ethical teachings that have stood the test of time and are supported by historical evidence. Works by philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Mill offer frameworks for understanding morality that are based on reason and human experience rather than unverifiable claims. These texts can provide a more reliable foundation for ethical behavior. Further, secular ethical frameworks provide a basis for moral reasoning that does not rely on religious texts. These frameworks encourage individuals to consider the consequences of their actions and the development of character, promoting a sense of responsibility and accountability that is grounded in human experience rather than divine command.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while The Book of Mormon may contain good principles, the question of its truth is paramount. A text that lacks historical and factual legitimacy should not be fully trusted as a source of moral guidance. It is valuable to seek out teachings that are both true and good, ensuring that ethical frameworks are built on a solid foundation of reality rather than fiction. By prioritizing truth, individuals can engage with a broader array of moral teachings that are not only beneficial but also rooted in a reliable understanding of the world. This approach fosters a more informed and responsible ethical perspective, allowing for a deeper engagement with the complexities of human morality.
Doctrine and Covenants
The Doctrine and Covenants is considered a foundational text for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, containing revelations and teachings received by Joseph Smith and subsequent leaders of the church. It is often viewed as a guide for church governance, doctrine, and personal conduct, with the introduction asserting its divine origin:
The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days. Although most of the sections are directed to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind and contain an invitation to all people everywhere to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to them for their temporal well-being and their everlasting salvation.
However, a critical examination of the Doctrine and Covenants reveals several significant issues regarding its claims of divine inspiration. In this section, I discuss specific problems with the Doctrine and Covenants that I believe negate any potential for divine inspiration. Because church leaders do not emphasize the truthfulness of the Doctrine and Covenants in the same way they emphasize The Book of Mormon, this section is a discussion of the book’s cultural and theological problems rather than a dissection of its truthfulness.
Manipulative and Abusive Language
The Doctrine and Covenants is replete with language that many would consider manipulative or abusive. The following passage is particularly problematic, even from the most faithful perspective:
Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56. Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
I believe this passage speaks for itself as a reflection of Joseph Smith’s character and intentions. In my opinion, this does not seem like the language of the loving God found elsewhere in scripture.
Compatibility with Other Scripture
If the Doctrine and Covenants were truly inspired by God, one would expect it to be consistent with other works that claim inspiration from God. Because this is visibly not the case, I conclude that the Doctrine and Covenants was likely written primarily by Joseph Smith to serve other (selfish) interests.
Appearance of Deity
The Book of Ether is asserted to take place around 2000 BC. It quotes God directly:
Ether 3:15. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
In order to be logically consistent, other scripture may not allow the appearance of God to anyone before about 2000 BC. However, the Doctrine and Covenants directly contradicts this assertion, assuming the church’s claim that Adam and his son Seth lived around 4000 BC is true.
Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-55. Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
This contradiction raises serious concerns, as God—a perfect being—should not have forgotten that He showed himself to Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah when He spoke in the book of Ether. While there exist many apologetic responses to this contradiction, I find it unreasonable to believe that these texts are inspired by God.
Polygamy
Polygamy is perhaps the most hotly contested topic in the church. I suggest the discussion of polygamy in the Doctrine and Covenants alone is damning evidence that Joseph Smith was acting in his own interests during the formation of his church, and I claim that it is reasonable to reject the hypothesis that he was inspired by God.
In The Book of Mormon, polygamy is generally condemned. While the book’s discussion of polygamy leaves room for God to temporarily allow polygamy, the following verse makes God’s stance on one specific case of polygamy clear:
Jacob 2:24. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Later, the Doctrine and Covenants claims God has a contradictory opinion on polygamy. Not only is David’s and Solomon’s polygamy not abominable, but the book claims God provided wives and concubines to David.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39. David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
God’s stance in the Doctrine and Covenants is generally more compatible with the position expressed in the Bible:
2 Samuel 12:7-8 (KJV). And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
The Lord Dwelling in the Heart
The Book of Mormon clarifies that the Lord does dwell in the heart:
Alma 34:36. And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.
The Doctrine and Covenants directly and clearly contradicts this verse:
Doctrine and Covenants 130:3. The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.
While apologetic responses to this contradiction often assert that the symbolic nature of the passages does not lend itself to a formal analysis, I propose the following: If it were purely symbolic and thus did not matter, God would not have wasted limited resources (Joseph Smith’s time, paper and ink, and space in a relatively small scriptural canon) to include these contradictory verses in scripture.
Priesthood Authority
The concept of priesthood authority also presents contradictions between the two texts. The Book of Mormon discusses the priesthood in a more general sense, emphasizing the importance of righteousness and the power of God rather than a specific organizational structure.
In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants provides a detailed account of the restoration of the priesthood and the specific offices within the church. It clearly outlines the hierarchy of the priesthood, including the roles of apostles, bishops, and other leaders. This emphasis on a structured priesthood can be seen as a departure from the more egalitarian and personal nature of priesthood described in The Book of Mormon, leading to questions about the legitimacy of priesthood authority and its implications for church governance.
Nature of Revelation
Another area of contradiction is the role and nature of revelation. The Book of Mormon presents a narrative in which prophets receive direct revelations from God, often in the form of visions or angelic visitations. For example, in Mosiah, King Benjamin delivers a powerful sermon after receiving a divine message, emphasizing the importance of personal revelation and the need for individuals to seek their own understanding of God’s will.
Conversely, the Doctrine and Covenants places a strong emphasis on the authority of church leaders to receive revelation on behalf of the entire church. This is particularly evident in sections that outline the roles of the President of the Church and other leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators. For instance, the Doctrine and Covenants states that the church is to be governed by the revelations given to its leaders, which can create a tension between individual revelation and the centralized authority of church leadership. This tension raises questions about the nature of personal revelation and its compatibility with the hierarchical structure established in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Discussion
I believe the glaring inconsistency between The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants is damning evidence that Joseph Smith was not inspired by a perfect being when he penned these records. If he were indeed inspired by God, this contradiction would leave room for the following possibilities:
- God was wrong. This raises huge problems for other truth claims, as an infallible God is critical to the possibility that one true church exists.
- God changed His mind between the writing of these verses. This would invalidate the claim that God is unchanging, and it creates problems for people who act according to the church’s commandments, as a God who changes His mind would not be a just deity.
- Joseph Smith incorrectly interpreted revelation. This raises significant concerns about the legitimacy of his other claims, including claims that have significantly impacted the trajectory of the church and the lives of its members.
- Only one of the canonized books is inspired by God. Were this the case, the modern church would be in apostasy, as the church uses both books as canon.
- Joseph Smith penned religious texts himself, and he was not inspired by God. Using Occam’s Razor, I would suggest this is the most realistic option.
Further, I believe that it would be unreasonable to blame ongoing revelation and restoration for these errors. These scriptures have existed for generations, and at least 15 people at the head of the church have claimed to have direct access to inspiration from God. I expect that if there are errors in fundamental religious texts, God would instruct these people to make appropriate corrections as promptly as possible.
Conclusion
While it is possible to spend years dissecting every problem with the Doctrine and Covenants, I believe in the context of a book claiming divine origin, even one problem is sufficient. The church and the book itself fail to uphold their burden of proof of the book’s validity.
While I have presented my own conclusion, there are many high-quality sources on these topics from spiritual and secular perspectives. I encourage those who may use this information to guide major life decisions to explore both sides of this topic in-depth and draw their own conclusions.
