The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was founded on the
teachings of the Book of Mormon, and the amazing story of its
translation from golden plates by Joseph Smith has been a central
selling point of Mormon proselytizing. But today after many years have
passed since the foundational truths of Christianity are said to have
been restored by the Book of Mormon, do Mormon leaders still believe in
its doctrinal statements?
The Book of Mormon and Contemporary Mormon Doctrine
The Book of Mormon teaches, for example, that there is:
-only one God
-who is a Spirit, and
-is "unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity"
(Alma 11:26-31; II Nephi 31:21; Mormon 9:9-11, 19; Moroni 7:22; 8:18).
Present-day Mormon doctrine, by contrast, teaches that:
-three separate gods are in charge of our planet
-two of these have bodies, were once men, and
-earned the right to become gods through faithful obedience to the
Mormon gospel.
Mormons now also believe there are millions upon millions of these
gods, each of whom earned godhood and shaped matter into earths over
which they rule. Faithful Mormon males expect to become gods themselves
and fashion and populate worlds of their own, with the cooperation of
their wives.
Joseph Smith, who originally dictated the words of the Book of
Mormon, later rejected its teaching that God is "unchangeable from
all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18). Toward the close of
his life as recorded in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith he
announced, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all
eternity. I will refute that idea . . . he was once a man like us"
(p. 345). The present Mormon gods, therefore, are plural, not spirit,
and not unchangeable as the Book of Mormon teaches.
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon insists that all mankind "must
be born again," that is, they must be "changed from their
carnal and fallen state" or "they can in no wise inherit the
kingdom of God." It proclaims one must "become a new
creature" by having "spiritually been born of God" and by
having "experienced this mighty change in your hearts" (Mosiah
27:24-28; Alma 5:14, emphasis added). Modern Mormonism, by contrast,
stresses the indispensability of water baptism by the Mormon church to
receive the new birth. "No one can be born again without
baptism" (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 101). In the Book
of Mormon, however, baptism is unnecessary for children and for
Gentiles ("they that are without the law") because "unto
such baptism availeth nothing" (Moroni 8:11-13, 20-22).
Again, the Book of Mormon declares there are only two destinies for
mankind: eternal happiness or eternal misery. Those who die rejecting
Christ receive eternal torment, with no second chance after death. They
are "cast into fire, from whence there is no return" and
"must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of
fire" (III Nephi 27:11 - 17; Mosiah 3:24-27; II Nephi 28:22-23;
Alma 34:32-35). By contrast, Mormonism today believes nearly everyone
will enjoy some degree of glory, and even those who have died can be
rescued from the "prison house" when the living perform proxy
baptisms for them.
Thus, Book of Mormon teachings have little bearing upon these current
major Mormon doctrines. Several other major doctrinal changes dealing
with the nature of God, prayer, polygamy, authority, etc. need to be
discussed here but space is limited.*
A Nineteenth-Century Product?
While Mormon leadership pays scant attention to the Book of Mormon's
theology, scholars of the faith have attempted to employ American
archaeology to lend the book the appearance of genuine antiquity. So
zealous have been their efforts that the Smithsonian has found it
necessary to issue a disclaimer that the book is ever used as a guide in
their archaeological work.*
Mormon attempts to establish the Book of Mormon as an ancient
production have been more than off-set by the mounting evidence that the
book is really a nineteenth century piece of fiction. Two important
studies underscore this human origin.
A General Authority's Own Findings
The first of these consists of two manuscripts written about 1922 by
the Mormon General Authority and apologist Brigham H. Roberts. It is
startling to find this defender of the Mormon faith arguing relentlessly
that Joseph Smith could well have authored the Book of Mormon
himself. Roberts' family has now allowed serious examination of
these two manuscripts that have been in their possession since his death
in 1933. They have been published by Mormon scholars in a book titled Studies
of the Book of Mormon (University of Illinois Press, 1985).*
Roberts makes four major points in the 375-page study. He observes in
his first manuscript, "Book of Mormon Difficulties," that the
book's account of the ancient Americans is in conflict with what is
known about them from recent scientific investigation. The Book of
Mormon represents them as having an Iron Age culture, while archaeology
has shown them to have advanced only to a polished Stone Age level at
the arrival of the white man (Studies, pp. 107-112).
The situation, he found, was further complicated by the Book of
Mormon's declaration that the original settlers came to the New World
when it was uninhabited. The Jaredites came "into that
quarter where there never had man been" (Ether 2:5) and fought
themselves to extinction. The Nephites likewise came to a land
"kept from all other nations" (II Nephi 1:9-11). Since the
latter group's arrival is placed at about 600 B.C., it would not allow
sufficient time for the development of the 169 known New World language
stocks, each with its varying dialects. Roberts confessed he had no
answers to such discrepancies. "The recent accepted authoritative
writers," he says "leave us, so far as I can at present see,
no ground of appeal or defense-the new knowledge seems to be against
us" (Studies, p. 143). Archaeology to this day has uncovered
nothing to overturn his findings.
Having shown the book is at variance with recent scientific
knowledge, Roberts shows in his second manuscript, "A Book of
Mormon Study," that the book agrees with the "common
knowledge" believed about the American aborigines in the early
nineteenth century. This agreement included even the erroneous ideas
that the Indians were descended from the "Lost Tribes" of
Israel and that they had once enjoyed a high degree of civilization.
The "common knowledge" was well summarized in "almost
hand-book form" in a book by the Rev. Ethan Smith. That work, View
of the Hebrews, was in print in its second, enlarged edition five years
before the Book of Mormon was published. Moreover, it was published in
the same small town where Oliver Cowdery was living. Cowdery was a
cousin of Joseph Smith Jr. and his assistant in producing the Book of
Mormon. In an analysis running nearly 100 pages, Roberts shows that
Ethan Smith's book contains practically the "ground-plan" of
the Book of Mormon (Studies, p. 240; 151-242).
Both books present the natives of America as Hebrews who journeyed
here from the Old World. Both claim a portion broke away from the
civilized group and degenerated into a savage state. The savage portion
completely destroyed the civilized one after long and terrible wars.
Both books attribute to the civilized branch an Iron Age culture. Both
represent these settlers of the New World as once having had a
"Book of God," an understanding of the gospel, and a white
messianic figure who visited them. Both regard American Gentiles as
having been singled out by prophecy to preach the gospel to the Indians
who are the remnant of those ancient American Hebrews. Roberts
hauntingly asks concerning these and the other parallels he found,
"Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and
suggestive contact, be merely coincidence?" (Studies, p. 242).
As his third main point, Roberts establishes the fact (using Mormon
sources exclusively) that Joseph Smith had imaginative powers of mind
sufficient to have produced the Book of Mormon. He describes Smith's
creativity as being "as strong and varied as Shakespeare's and no
more to be accounted for than the English Bard's" (Studies, p.
244).
Roberts rounds out his case for the human origin of the Book of
Mormon with a 115-page discussion of the errors that result from Joseph
Smith's untrained, though creative, mind. Roberts points to the
impossibility of Lehi's three-day journey from Jerusalem to the shores
of the Red Sea-a 170-mile trek on foot, with women and children along.
He cites their arrival in America, the land "kept from all other
nations," where they unaccountably find domesticated
animals-"the cow and the ox [oxen are neutered bulls], and the ass
and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat" (I Nephi 18:25,
emphasis added). Roberts finds an amateurish repetition of the same
plots with only the character changed. The book, he notes, attempts to
outdo the Bible miracles and presents some incredible battle scenes. In
one instance, 2060 "striplings" fought wars over a 4- 5 year
period without one being killed (Alma 56-58). This leads Roberts to ask:
Is all this sober history . . . or is it a wondertale of an immature
mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when
asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history? (Studies, p. 283).
The question appears to need no answer. Roberts also points out how
typical of the revivalism of Smith's time are the swoonings and
religious "falling" found over and over in the Book of Mormon.
At this point Roberts' manuscript breaks off, but not before he has made
us conscious of how heavily the Book of Mormon depends upon the culture
of its day for its content and style (Studies, p. 308).
King James Bible Plagiarized
Following hard on the heels of the Roberts' analysis is a study by H.
Michael Marquardt,* demonstrating by very strong evidence that the King
James Version was used in the composition of the Book of Mormon.
Marquardt shows that the portion of the Book of Mormon that was
supposed to have been written during the Old Testament period is
literally peppered with phrases and quotations from the King James New
Testament (he lists 200 examples). Even the "prophecies"
appearing in the Old Testament portion of the book are often given in
the New Testament wording that accompanies their fulfillment. John the
Baptist, for example, is predicted to come and prepare the way for One
"mightier than I" (I Nephi 10:8/Luke 3:16), "whose shoe's
latchet I am not worthy to unloose" (I Nephi 10:8/John 1:27).
Similarly, there shall be "one fold, and one shepherd" (I
Nephi 22:25/ John 10: 16) and "one faith and one baptism" (Mosiah
18:21/Eph. 4:5).
Again, Alma's life and ministry in the Old Testament period of the
Book of Mormon are virtually a copy of the life of the Apostle Paul.
Typical Pauline expressions are even found on his lips: "faith,
hope and charity" (Alma 7:24/1 Cor. 13:13), "the power of
Christ unto salvation" (Alma 15:6/Rom. 1:16), "without God in
the world" (Alma 41:11/Eph. 2:12), etc.
Biblical Disharmony
Book of Mormon believers have tried to account for these anachronisms
by stating that in translating, when a phrase was sufficiently close to
one from the English Bible, Smith simply employed the familiar biblical
phrase. This explanation fails to account for the fact that not only is
the New Testament phrase used, but in many instances the New Testament
interpretation of the Old Testament material is also adopted and even
expanded.
For example, the New Testament's interpretation of Melchizedec as a
type of the Son of God is adopted and expanded in the Old Testament
portion of the Book of Mormon into an entire order of priests
"after the order of his Son," and an explanation is added as
to why Melchizedec was called "King of Righteousness" and
"King of Peace" (Alma 12 & 13; cf. Heb. 7:2). Thus the New
Testament material has become an integral part of the Book of Mormon
text itself. New Testament concepts, not just occasional phrases, have
been transported into the Old Testament part of the Book of Mormon. As a
result, there is no gradual unfolding of doctrine such as is found in
the Bible. Christianity is known, full-blown, as early as the building
of the Tower of Babel.
Moreover, the Book of Mormon occasionally blunders in its use of the
biblical material. Peter's paraphrase (Acts 3:22f) of Moses ' words
(Deut.18: 15, 18f) is mistakenly referred to as Moses' own words (I
Nephi 22:20). Thus, Peter is accidentally quoted hundreds of years
before the book of Acts was written or Peter had ever uttered his words.
Again, the words of Malachi 4:1 appear in I Nephi 22: 15 over a hundred
years before Malachi wrote them.
In the second part of his study, Marquardt points out other
contemporary material which was worked into the Book of Mormon. American
patriotism of the New England variety and the anti-Mason excitement that
arose near Smith's home in 1827 are reflected.
More telling yet are the events of Smith's life written into the
work. Martin Harris' visit to the scholars in New York City to check on
Smith's translating ability shows up in the Book of Mormon after Martin
returned from his trip. Smith even added a "prophecy" about
himself as called to be the translator of the Mormon record (11 Nephi
3:11-15). How easy it is to make "prophecies" after the event
has already happened.
The Final Blow
Perhaps most damaging of all is the way the Book of Mormon confuses
the Old and New Covenants. It stresses that before the coming of Christ
the faithful kept the Law of Moses (II Nephi 5:10; 25:23-25, 20; Alma
30:3), yet they also established churches, taught and practiced
Christian baptism, and were conversant with New Testament doctrines and
events (e.g. II Nephi 9:23; Mosiah 18:17). The gradual unfolding of
theological themes so evident in the Bible is completely lacking in the
Book of Mormon. In the Bible the Old Covenant is taken away to establish
the New (Heb. 10:9). The Book of Mormon disrupts this divine pattern and
intermingles the covenants and their ordinances. The book also adds
Protestant revivalistic language and ideas which were current in Smith's
day. All this makes the Book of Mormon seem "plainer" than the
Bible to one who has little acquaintance with God's Holy Scriptures.
However, a careful examination of this book, whose theology has been
largely discarded by the Mormon church, discloses that it is really a
piece of early American fiction. Through its wholesale borrowings from
the Bible and contemporary material, and its imitation of the King James
style of language, it was designed to have a powerful appeal to the
churchgoers of that day. A careful evaluation, however, clearly shows
that it is in no sense an authentic revelation from God.
-Wesley P. Walters
Return to the Cults
Index Page
email