Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5

Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 5: The Book of Mormon"



Chapter 4
A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books, a work by author: Jerald and Sandra Tanner
 		Chapter 6
Claim Evaluation
The Changing World of Mormonism
Chart.changing.5.jpg

Response to claims made in The Changing World of Mormonism, "Chapter 5: The Book of Mormon"


Jump to details:


Response to claim: 94 - Brigham Young claimed that some of the Book of Mormon witnesses doubted that they had ever seen an angel

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Brigham Young claimed that some of the Book of Mormon witnesses doubted that they had ever seen an angel.

Author's sources:
  1. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:164.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Brigham is not referring to the Three or the Eight Witnesses:

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. One of the Quorum of the Twelve—a young man full of faith and good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw and handled them, and saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostacy, and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition.[1]


Response to claim: 94 - The authors claim that Oliver Cowdery may have had doubts about his testimony

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

The authors claim that Oliver Cowdery may have had doubts about his testimony

Author's sources:
  1. Times and Seasons 1841 vol. 2, p.482

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The authors can only infer this - they have no actual evidence.


Question: Did Oliver Cowdery ever deny his Book of Mormon witness because he thought that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet?

There is a wealth of evidence which demonstrates that Oliver never denied his testimony, even after his disagreements with Joseph Smith

As a lawyer, while writing to Phineas Young, Oliver said:

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character, as those who might believe in my testimony, after I should be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed Brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and looked down through time, and witnessed the effects these two must produce,—you would feel what you have never felt, were wicked men conspiring to lessen the effects of your testimony on man, after you should have gone to your long sought rest.[2]

Surely Oliver's concern for his testimony included his testimony as a witness.

Eventually Oliver left the law practice he had started after leaving the Church, and journeyed to Kanesville, Iowa, with his wife and daughter and finally reunited with the Church in 1848. Before he was baptized he bore his testimony to the congregation that had gathered for a conference.

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. ...It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high.[3]

Oliver rejoined the Church and prepared to journey to Utah to unite with the main body of the Latter-day Saints but he died while living temporarily in Richmond, Missouri. Oliver Cowdery had contracted tuberculosis. In March 1850, while on his deathbed, Oliver used his dying breaths to testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Lucy P. Young, his half-sister, was at his bedside and reported:

Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle.[4]

In November 1881, over 30 years after Oliver's death, his former law partner Judge W. Lang claimed in a letter that Oliver had admitted that the Book of Mormon was a fraud. Lang's letter claimed that the Book of Mormon was derived from the Spalding manuscript by Oliver, and that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith approved the final draft. This claim cannot be considered credible for a number of reasons, among them the fact that the Spalding manuscript bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon (something even the critics agree with), and the fact that Sidney Rigdon was never associated with Joseph Smith prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. The basis for Lang's claim seems to be the standard Spalding theory of Book of Mormon authorship.


Response to claim: 96 - The story of Hiram Page and his stone is used as an example of the witnesses' gullibility

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon were "very gullible." The story of Hiram Page and his stone is used as an example of their gullibility.

Author's sources:
  1. History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 1, pp.109-10

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Tanners stoop to ad hominem, probably hoping we will ignore the evidence and judge the men before hearing them.


Question: Why did Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer accept Hiram Page's seer stone revelations as authoritative?

The Lord used this incident as a way to teach Oliver the proper order of revelation in the Church

This event is discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual (2013):

In 1830, the Prophet Joseph Smith encountered a challenge because Church members did not understand the order of revelation in the Church. Hiram Page claimed to receive revelations for the Church through the medium of a special stone, and some Church members, including Oliver Cowdery, believed him. Shortly before a Church conference that was held on September 26, 1830, the Lord revealed truths that helped Oliver Cowdery and others understand the order of revelation in the Church.[5]

Oliver was actually directed by the Lord to correct Hiram Page in this matter. It was a "teaching moment" for Oliver:

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

14 And thou shalt assist to settle all these things, according to the covenants of the church, before thou shalt take thy journey among the Lamanites. (D&C 28꞉11-14).


Response to claim: 97 - David Whitmer said that God told him to separate himself from among the Latter Day Saints

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

David Whitmer said that God told him to separate himself from among the Latter Day Saints.

Author's sources:
  1. An Address to All Believers in Christ, pp. 27-28

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

FairMormon doesn't have any problem believing that God told Whitmer to leave Far West. Whitmer had been excommunicated well before God told him to leave.


Question: Did God tell David Whitmer to leave the Church and repudiate Mormonism?

God told David Whitmer to leave Far West one month after he had already been excommunicated from the Church

David Whitmer, one of the Book of Mormon's Three Witnesses, said:

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, should it be done unto them."[6]

and

In June, 1838, at Far West, Mo., a secret organization was formed, Doctor Avard being put in as the leader of the band; a certain oath was to be administered to all the brethren to bind them to support the heads of the church in everything they should teach. All who refused to take this oath were considered dissenters from the church, and certain things were to be done concerning these dissenters, by Dr. Avard's secret band. I make no farther statements now; but suffice it to say that my persecutions, for trying to show them their errors, became of such a nature that I had to leave the Latter Day Saints; and, as I rode on horseback out of Far West, in June, 1838, the voice of God from heaven spake to me as I have stated above.[7]

God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism

The quotations cited by the critics are taken from a pamphlet written by David Whitmer near the end of his life. In this pamphlet, called An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer strongly reiterates his testimony of the Book of Mormon and his experience seeing the angel as one of the three witnesses. He then goes on to outline in detail his disagreements with the church and with Joseph Smith, Jr. It was because of these disagreements that Whitmer was ultimately excommunicated. When God told him to leave Far West, he had not been a member of the Church for weeks. God did not tell Whitmer to repudiate Mormonism.

Whitmer's safety in Far West may have been at risk after his excommunication

However, since he remained among the Saints during the month after he was excommunicated, he was at potential risk of harm. Whitmer announced that "the voice of God" told him to "separate [him]self from among the Latter Day Saints" in June 1838, after the formation of Sampson Avard's secret vigilante group. David Whitmer had been excommunicated from the Church more than a month earlier, and his only continued association with the Saints was the fact that he was still living among them in Far West.

Whitmer was not instructed to leave the Church or "repudiate Mormonism," he was instructed (by God) to leave Far West after he was already excommunicated. This was arguably a very prudent course, both for Whitmer's safety and the integrity of the Restoration witnesses. Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon and seeing the angel is much more powerful since he forcefully maintained it even after he left the Church and disagreed with Joseph Smith.


Response to claim: 97 - Joseph said that John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris are "too mean to mention"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Joseph said that John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris are "too mean to mention."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Despite the violent disagreement between Joseph and these apostates, none denied their testimony. Why would Joseph risk angering men who he knew could expose his fraud, unless he knew their witness too strong to deny?

History of the Church 3:232:

Is not all manner of evil of every description spoken of us falsely, yea, we say unto you falsely. We have been misrepresented and misunderstood, and belied, and the purity and integrity and uprightness of our hearts have not been known—and it is through ignorance—yea, the very depths of ignorance is the cause of it; and not only ignorance, but on the part of some, gross wickedness and hypocrisy also; for some, by a long face and sanctimonious prayers, and very pious sermons, had power to lead the minds of the ignorant and unwary, and thereby obtain such influence that when we approached their iniquities the devil gained great advantage—would bring great trouble and sorrow upon our heads; and, in fine, we have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them. Marsh and "another," whose hearts are full of corruption, whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the word of the Scripture: "The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."


Response to claim: 98 - Oliver Cowdery was accused of being involved in counterfeiting

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Oliver Cowdery was accused of being involved in counterfeiting.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Oliver was accused of "dishonestly retaining notes after they had been paid," along with a number of other things. "Counterfeiting" makes it sound like he was printing fake currency.


History of the Church 3:16:

Charges Against Oliver Cowdery.

Wednesday, April 11,—Elder Seymour Brunson preferred the following charges against Oliver Cowdery, to the High Council at Far West: 1

To the Bishop and Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I prefer the following charges against President Oliver Cowdery.

"First—For persecuting the brethren by urging on vexatious law suits against them, and thus distressing the innocent.

"Second—For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith, Jun., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery.

"Third—For treating the Church with contempt by not attending meetings.

"Fourth—For virtually denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority or revelations whatever, in his temporal affairs.

"Fifth—For selling his lands in Jackson county, contrary to the revelations.

"Sixth—For writing and sending an insulting letter to President Thomas B. Marsh, while the latter was on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office as President of the Council, and by insulting the High Council with the contents of said letter.

"Seventh—For leaving his calling to which God had appointed him by revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of law.

Eighth—For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says.

"Ninth—For dishonestly retaining notes after they had been paid; and finally, for leaving and forsaking the cause of God, and returning to the beggarly elements of the world, and neglecting his high and holy calling, according to his profession."[8]

Response to claim: 99 - Oliver Cowdery is not a reliable witness because he joined a Methodist church after his excommunication

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Oliver Cowdery is not a reliable witness because he joined a Methodist church after his excommunication.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Oliver was a witness of the Book of Mormon, not the Church. Oliver never renounced that testimony even after he joined another Church. A religious Christian, he probably preferred to worship somewhere than nowhere at all. Latter-day Saints believe there is much good in other faiths. Oliver ultimately returned to the Church, and continued to affirm his testimony until his death.


Response to claim: 99-100 - Some of the Book of Mormon witnesses later followed James Strang

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Some of the Book of Mormon witnesses later followed James Strang, and, according to the authors, "their testimony is recorded in almost the same way that the testimony of the eleven witnesses is recorded in the Book of Mormon."

Author's sources:
  • James Strang, Gospel Herald, January 20, 1848
  • William E. McLellin, The Ensign of Liberty, Kirtland, Ohio, April, 1847
  • John Whitmer's History, p.23
  • Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, vol. 8, pp.124-28

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There were no supernatural elements to the story associated with the Strang plates. There were no witnesses of angelic visits.


Question: What are the differences between the Strangite witness statements and those of the Three and Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon?

Strang's witnesses saw nothing supernatural

No one doubts that Strang had a set of a few very small metallic plates in his possession, or that they were removed from the earth in the manner reported above. In that sense, there would be nothing for his witnesses to deny.

Wrote Daniel C. Peterson in "Defending the Faith: The story behind James Strang and his sect," Deseret News (9 June 2011) off-site

The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife's early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang's angelic visitations "may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality."

And they were almost certainly forgeries.

The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had taken to the plates' burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.[9]

Some of Strang's witnesses later repudiated their testimonies, and one witness later admitted helping to fabricate the plates

Ex-strangite Isaac Scott, who was once a leader in the Strangite Church, stated that Caleb P. Barnes told him that he and Strang had actually fabricated the plates. According to Scott, the men,

made the 'plates' out of Ben [Perce]'s old kettle and engraved them with an old saw file, and ... when completed they put acid on them to corrode them and give them an ancient appearance; and that to deposit them under the tree, where they were found, they took a large auger ... which Ben [Perce] owned, put a fork handle on the auger and with it bored a long slanting hole under a tree on 'The Hill of Promise,' as they called it, laying the earth in a trail on a cloth as taken out, then put the 'plates' in, tamping in all the earth again, leaving no trace of their work visible. [10]

Peterson continues:

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

The 18 "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses' testimony was published as a preface to "The Book of the Law of the Lord," which Strang said he derived from the "Plates of Laban." (He appears to have begun the "translation" at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang's witnesses report seeing the plates, but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.[11]

Chauncy Loomis reports that Samuel Graham described how the Plates of Laban were fabricated, and Samuel Bacon finds remnants of the plates hidden in Strang's ceiling

Chauncy Loomis, in a letter to Joseph Smith III dated 10 Nov. 1888 and published in the Saint's Herald, talked of a conversation that he had with George Adams. Adams described how Strang had asked him to dress in a long white robe and use phosphorous to impersonate an angel. Adams also reported that Samuel Graham talked about how he and Strang fabricated the Plates of Laban. Loomis reported that Samuel Bacon discovered fragments of the plates hidden in the ceiling of Strang's house, and then left the Strangite Church.

At this time George [Adams] was gone from the island on some business. When he returned and saw how things were going he left the island with his family. I saw him and wife after this on Mackinaw Island. He said to me, “Brother Loomis, I always thought you to be an honest man, but you are like poor dog Tray; you have been caught in bad company, and now my advice to you is to leave the island, for I tell you Strang is not a prophet of God. I consider him to be a self-confessed imposter. Strang wanted me to get a couple of bottles of phosphoros and dress myself in a long white robe and appear on the highest summit on the island, called Mount Pisgah, break the bottles, make an illumination and blow a trumpet and disappear so that he might make it appear that an angel had made them a visit; that it might beget faith in the Saint.” I said to him, “Brother Adams, how is it that you deny the testimony given by you so long ago, that you knew Strang was a prophet of God?” “Well, brother Loomis, I will tell you: I was in the spirit of Strang then.” I have since thought that if he ever spoke the truth it was then. I speak of these things that you may see how we were Strang led. I was in the spirit of Strang and foretold some things that would befall us which never came to pass; but I believe that myself and another brother at one time had the Spirit of God, for we prophesied that Strang would be killed, and the Saints would be driven from the island, which truly did come to pass. I shall now make some statement in regard to others who were the chief men of the kingdom. Bro. Samuel Graham, I think, president of the Twelve, declared that he and Strang made those plates that Strang claimed to translate the Book of the Law from. But they in the first place prepared the plates and coated them with beeswax and then formed the letters and cut them in with a pen knife and then exhibited them to the rest of the Twelve. The facts were Graham apostatized and left the island, taking his family and Strang’s first wife, Mary, with him to Voree, Wisconsin. At this time Strang was at Detroit, Michigan. His wife never returned to him; he had four others besides and some concubines. Bro. Samuel Bacon says that in repairing Strang’s house he found hid behind the ceiling the fragments of those plates which Strang made the Book of the Law from. He turned infidel and left the island. [11]

Image of page 719 of the Saint's Herald dated 10 Nov. 1888.

Peterson concludes,

"We can hardly escape the conclusion," writes Quaife, "that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that "based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.

The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith's favor.[12]

In summary, Strang and his witnesses:

  • had no supernatural component to their witness
  • had fewer plates in his possession
  • took the better part of 10 years to complete his translation project
  • had one who later denounced his project as mere "human invention"
  • had one who later confessed to helping fabricate the plates

The collective testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is, in terms of its evidentiary value and strength, far more challenging to critics than is the testimony of James J. Strang's witnesses.


Response to claim: 103 - Latter-day Saint author Richard Anderson was "forced to acknowledge that Martin Harris' life shows evidence of 'religious instability'"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Martin Harris changed his religion thirteen times. The authors claim that Latter-day Saint author Richard Anderson was "forced to acknowledge that Martin Harris' life shows evidence of 'religious instability'."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Martin Harris and the other Book of Mormon witnesses who left the Church continued to seek out something to replace what they had lost. Richard Anderson was never "forced to acknowledge" any sort of "instability" on the part of the witnesses.


Question: What did Martin Harris's non-Mormon associates say about his character?

Even early anti-Mormons who knew Harris believed that he was “honest,” and “industrious,” “benevolent,” and a “worthy citizen”

Even early anti-Mormons who knew Harris, or knew those acquainted with Harris, believed that he was “honest,” and “industrious,” “benevolent,” and a “worthy citizen.” [13] Wrote the local paper on Harris' departure with the Saints:

Several families, numbering about fifty souls, took up their line of march from this town last week for the “promised land,” among whom was Martin Harris, one of the original believers in the “Book of Mormon.” Mr. Harris was among the early settlers of this town, and has ever borne the character of an honorable and upright man, and an obliging and benevolent neighbor. He had secured to himself by honest industry a respectable fortune—and he has left a large circle of acquaintances and friends to pity his delusion.[14]

Pomeroy Tucker, who knew Harris but didn’t believe in the Book of Mormon, once noted:

How to reconcile the act of Harris in signing his name to such a statement [his Book of Mormon testimony], in view of the character of honesty which had always been conceded to him, could never easily be explained. [15]

Martin Harris's association with a number of LDS "splinter groups"

Some have argued that Harris' tendency to associate with a number of LDS "splinter groups" indicates that he was "unstable and easily influenced by charismatic leaders." [16]

This claim fundamentally distorts Harris' activities during this period. [17] Wrote Matthew Roper:

Martin was excommunicated in December 1837 in Kirtland, Ohio, where he remained for the next thirty-two years. During this time, Harris associated himself with Warren Parrish and other Kirtland dissenters who organized a church. On March 30, 1839, George A. Smith wrote a letter from Kirtland describing some of the divisions in the Parrish party. "Last Sabbath a division arose among the Parrish party about the Book of Mormon; John F. Boynton, Warren Parrish, Luke Johnson and others said it was nonsense. Martin Harris then bore testimony of its truth and said all would be damned if they rejected it." Such actions suggest a significant degree of independence for which Harris is generally not given credit. [18]

Harris managed to frustrate many other religious groups by his continued insistence on preaching the Book of Mormon instead of their tenets. He eventually returned to the Church and died in full fellowship.

The witnesses were men considered honest, responsible, and intelligent. Their contemporaries did not know quite what to make of three such men who testified of angels and gold plates, but they did not impugn the character or reliability of the men who bore that testimony.

Events used to impugn Martin Harris' character

"Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them."

Some critics have used a December 1838 quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith to impugn the character of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. The above is the standard representation of this quote. Joseph Smith wrote to the Saints on 16 December 1838 to provide comfort to the them and update them on his current condition in Liberty Jail:

To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Caldwell county, and all the Saints who are scattered abroad, who are persecuted, and made desolate, and who are afflicted in divers manners for Christ's sake and the Gospel's, by the hands of a cruel mob and the tyrannical disposition of the authorities of this state; and whose perils are greatly augmented by the wickedness and corruption of false brethren, greeting: May grace, mercy, and the peace of God be and abide with you; and notwithstanding all your sufferings, we assure you that you have our prayers and fervent desires for your welfare, day and night. We believe that that God who seeth us in this solitary place, will hear our prayers, and reward you openly.

Know assuredly, dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus that we are in bonds and in prison. But we say unto you, that we consider that our condition is better (notwithstanding our sufferings) than that of those who have persecuted us, and smitten us, and borne false witness against us; and we most assuredly believe that those who do bear false witness against us, do seem to have a great triumph over us for the present. [19]

By this time, all of the three witnesses had fallen away from the Church after severe disagreements with Joseph Smith. This is why Joseph Smith published the comment in the letter—Joseph was angry with them:

Was it for committing adultery that we were assailed? We are aware that that false slander has gone abroad, for it has been reiterated in our ears. These are falsehoods also. Renegade "Mormon" dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters]; and by them try to do all the injury they can, and after that they hate them worse than they do us, because they find them to be base traitors and sycophants.

Such characters God hates; we cannot love them. The world hates them, and we sometimes think that the devil ought to be ashamed of them.

We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God.

When we consecrate our property to the Lord it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy, for this is the law of God; it is not for the benefit of the rich, those who have no need; and when a man consecrates or dedicates his wife and children, he does not give them to his brother, or to his neighbor, for there is no such law: for the law of God is, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart. Now for a man to consecrate his property, wife and children, to the Lord, is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widow and fatherless, the sick and afflicted, and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for him and his house to serve the Lord. In order to do this, he and all his house must be virtuous, and must shun the very appearance of evil.

[Page 231]

Now if any person has represented anything otherwise than what we now write, he or she is a liar, and has represented us falsely—and this is another manner of evil which is spoken against us falsely.[20]

It is on this page that we get the quote from Joseph referencing the men specifically. Notice how he states only that they are "mean" and nothing more:

And now, brethren, we say unto you—what more can we enumerate? Is not all manner of evil of every description spoken of us falsely, yea, we say unto you falsely. We have been misrepresented and misunderstood, and belied, and the purity and integrity and uprightness of our hearts have not been known—and it is through ignorance—yea, the very depths of ignorance is the cause of it; and not only ignorance, but on the part of some, gross wickedness and hypocrisy also; for some, by a long face and sanctimonious prayers, and very pious sermons, had power to lead the minds of the ignorant and unwary, and thereby obtain such influence that when we approached their iniquities the devil gained great advantage—would bring great trouble and sorrow upon our heads; and, in fine, we have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them. Marsh and "another," whose hearts are full of corruption, whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the word of the Scripture: "The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."[21]

Pledging Loyalty to a Seeress who used a Black Seer Stone?

One critic claims that "During the summer of 1837, while in Kirtland, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Oliver pledged their new loyalty to a prophetess who used a black seer stone and danced herself into 'trances.'[22]"

The author's source is "Biographical Sketches, Lucy Mack Smith, p. 211-213". Following the source we read this:

At this time a certain young woman, who was living at David Whitmer’s, uttered a prophecy, which she said was given her, by looking through a black stone that she had found. This prophecy gave some altogether a new idea of things.
She said, the reason why one-third of the Church would turn away from Joseph, was because that he was in transgression himself; that he would fall from his office on account of the same; that David Whitmer, or Martin Harris would fill Joseph’s place; and that the one who did not succeed him, would be the Counsellor to the one that did.
This girl soon became an object of great attention among those who were disaffected. Dr. Williams, the ex-justice of the peace,became her scribe, and wrote her revelations for her.
Jared Carter, who lived in the same house with David Whitmer, soon imbibed the same spirit, and I was informed, that he said in one of their meetings, that he had power to raise “Joe Smith” to the highest heavens, or sink him down to the lowest hell.
Shortly after this, Jared came to our house, and I questioned him relative to what he had said concerning Joseph. Not having mentioned the matter to my husband, he did not understand what I meant at first; but after a little explanation, he warned Jared to repent of the injudicious course that he was taking, and speedily confess his sins to the Church, or the judgments of God would overtake him. Jared received this admonition, and acknowledging his fault, agreed to confess to the brethren, the first opportunity.
The next morning he was seized with a violent pain in his eyes, and continued in great distress for two days. On the evening of the second day, he arose from his bed, and, kneeling down, besought the Lord to heal him, covenanting to make a full confession to the Church at meeting the next Sunday.
Accordingly, the next Sabbath he arose and stated to the brethren that he had done wrong; and, asking their forgiveness, begged to be received again into their confidence. He did not, however, state what he had done that was wrong; nevertheless his confession was received, and he was forgiven.
But the rest of his party continued obstinate. They still held their secret meetings at David Whitmer’s, and when the young woman, who was their instructress, was through giving what revelations she intended for the evening, she would jump out of her chair and dance over the floor, boasting of her power, until she was perfectly exhausted. Her proselytes would also, in the most vehement manner, proclaim their purity and holiness, and the mighty power which they were going to have.
They made a standing appointment for meetings to be held every Thursday, by the pure Church in the house of the Lord.
They also circulated a paper, in order to ascertain how many would follow them, and it was found, that a great proportion of the Church were decidedly in favour of the new party.
In this spirit they went to Missouri, and contaminated the minds of many of the brethren against Joseph, in order to destroy his influence.
This made it more necessary than ever, to keep a strict guard at the houses of those who were the chief objects of their vengeance.

There is no mention of Martin Harris in this account. Thus we can only conclude that the author misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not we won't say) his sources.

"...became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another, as if reason and common sense were thrown off their balance...

One critic wrote:

As mentioned previously, Martin had a reputation for extreme superstition and was generally known as an unstable, gullible, and inconsistent individual.

Mormon writers have conceded as much. In the Church’s Millennial Star it was noted that Martin “was filled with the rage and madness of a demon” and “one day he would be one thing, and another day another thing.” Martin “became partially deranged or shattered, as many believed, flying from one thing to another, as if reason and common sense were thrown off their balance.”

The article continues on with Martin’s dishonesty and immoral and inconsistent character.

The author's source is "Millenial Star, November 15, 1846, Sketches of Notorious Characters, p. 124-125."

The author seems to think that the Saints thought of him as deranged. The quote, in context is clearly referring to the Saints' perception that Martin was possessed by a very real Devil or false Spirit. They believed in him as an honest and upright man. Thus, this is not so much as an observation of his supposed "superstitious nature", but of the sadness and anger they expressed when they saw an honest, upright, respectable gentleman taken in by evil influences and left the Church they loved and which he helped found.

Hurlbut Affidavits

Main article: Question: What did the Hurlbut affidavits say about Martin Harris?

Conclusion

All of these incidences beg questions:

  1. Why would Joseph risk angering these men further if he knew that they could expose him?
  2. Why didn't they expose him and instead go to their deathbeds (and in the case of Harris and Whitmer never returning to the Church) testifying that the work was true?
  3. Why did they always hold firm to their testimony to the Book of Mormon even when harassed by members of the Church and Joseph Smith himself after leaving it?

These are all, in the end, testaments to the strength and integrity of the witnesses in general and their integrity as witnesses to truth. They held true to their testimony even in the face of great temptation. That—in and of itself—is testimony to their reliability.



Response to claim: 108 - Martin Harris said that he only saw the plates with his "spiritual eyes"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Martin Harris said that he only saw the plates with his "spiritual eyes."

Author's sources:
  1. Marvin S. Hill, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter, 1972, pp.83-84.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The authors focus only on the second-hand "spiritual eyes" comment and don't address the many instances in which Martin Harris said that he saw and handled the plates.


Question: Why would Martin Harris use the phrases "eye of faith" or "spiritual eye" to describe his visionary experience?

Martin Harris was using scriptural language to describe his visionary experience

Why did Martin Harris use the particular phraseology that he did in describing his experience? Perhaps the answer lies in another passage found in the book of Ether 12꞉19.

And there were many whose faith was so exceedingly strong, even before Christ came, who could not be kept from within the veil, but truly saw with their eyes the things which they had beheld with an eye of faith, and they were glad.

Here it is noted that those people who have "exceedingly strong" faith can see things "within the veil." But even though they see things in the spiritual realm "with their eyes" it is described as beholding things with "an eye of faith."

Another possibility can be seen in the text of Moses 1꞉11. It reads:

But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face.

This dovetails nicely with the description of David Whitmer who "explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it—that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God." [23]


Response to claim: 108 - David Whitmer said that he "handled the plates," but that he "did not touch nor handle the plates"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

David Whitmer said that he "handled the plates," but that he "did not touch nor handle the plates."

Author's sources:
  1. Saints Herald, 1882

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author's deliberately conflate several accounts of Whitmer's words in order to make it appear as if he contradicts himself.


David Whitmer (1887): "We were in the spirit when we had the view...but we were in the body also"

David Whitmer helps clear up the “spiritual” vs. “natural” viewing of the plates. Responding to the interviewer who questioned Harris. Anthony Metcalf wrote:

In March 1887, I wrote a letter to David Whitmer, requesting him to explain to me the condition he was in when he saw the angel and the plates, from which the Book of Mormon is supposed to have been translated. In April, 1887, I received a letter from David Whitmer, dated on the second of that month, replying to my communication, from which I copy, verbatim, as follows:

‘In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it ‘being in vision.’ We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation.[24]


Response to claim: 108 - Martin Harris said that the eight witnesses never saw the plates

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Martin Harris said that the eight witnesses never saw the plates.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Harris was not one of the eight. They can—and did—speak for themselves. John Whitmer, who was one of the Eight Witnesses, said that they did see the plates.


John Whitmer (1876): "I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon"

In 1876, John Whitmer, one of the Eight Witnesses, wrote a lengthy letter to Mark Forscutt, which included the following:

Oliver Cowdery lived in Richmond, Mo., some 40 miles from here, at the time of his death. I went to see him and was with him for some days previous to his demise. I have never heard him deny the truth of his testimony of the Book of Mormon under any circumstances whatever. . . . Neither do I believe that he would have denied, at the peril of his life; so firm was he that he could not be made to deny what he has affirmed to be a divine revelation from God. . . .

I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. There are only two of the witnesses to that book now living, to wit., David Whitmer, one of the three, and John Wh[itmer], one of the eight. Our names have gone forth to all nations, tongues and people as a divine revelation from God. And it will bring to pass the designs of God according to the declaration therein contained.[25]

John Whitmer's character

"Mr. [John] Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequently, his appointment [to preach] drew out a large audience. Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the angel...."[26]


Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other


Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5

Video from The Interpreter Foundation.


Hiram Page remained "true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon until the very last"

Insisted Hyrum Page:

As to the Book of Mormon, it would be doing injustice to myself, and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847.[27]

Page's son recalled after his death:

I knew my father to be true and faithful to his testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon until the very last. Whenever he had an opportunity to bear his testimony to this effect, he would always do so, and seemed to rejoice exceedingly in having been privileged to see the plates.[28]


Notes

  1. ↑ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:164.
  2. ↑ Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 23 March 1846, Oliver Cowdery Collection, "Scriptory Book of Joseph Smith Jr." (kept by George W. Robinson), 22, LDS Church Historical Department (published in Scott H. Faulring, ed, An American Prophet's Record.— The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), emphasis in original; cited in Scott H. Faulring. “The Return of Oliver Cowdery”, FARMS Featured Paper, no date.
  3. ↑ Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 1:246.
  4. ↑ Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901), 1:246.
  5. ↑ "Lesson 34: Doctrine and Covenants 28," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, 2013.
  6. ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).
  7. ↑ David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon (David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887).
  8. ↑ History of the Church 3:16
  9. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Defending the Faith: The story behind James Strang and his sect," Deseret News (9 June 2011)
  10. ↑ The Saints’ Herald 35 (December 29, 1888): 831–32. See also Wikipedia article "Voree plates".
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Letter from Chauncy Loomis to Joseph Smith III, “Experience on Beaver Island with James J. Strang,” Saint’s Herald, 10 Nov. 1888, 718-719.
  12. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Defending the Faith: The story behind James Strang and his sect," Deseret News (9 June 2011)
  13. ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 96–98. ISBN 0877478465.
  14. ↑ “Several families . . .,” Wayne Sentinel (Palmyra, New York) (27 May 1831). off-site
  15. ↑ Pomeroy Tucker, Palmyra Courier (24 May 1872); cited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 104. ISBN 0877478465.
  16. ↑ Tanner and Tanner, "Roper Attacks Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?" 14.
  17. ↑ Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 167–170. ISBN 0877478465.
  18. ↑ Matthew Roper, "Comments on the Book of Mormon Witnesses: A Response to Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/2 (1993). [164–193] link; citing Letter of George A. Smith to Josiah Fleming, 30 March 1838, Kirtland, Ohio.
  19. ↑ Joseph Smith "The Prophet's Letter to the Church" 16 December 1838 in History of the Church Vol 3: Ch 15: P 226 (ed.) Brigham H. Roberts off-site
  20. ↑ Ibid, 230-31
  21. ↑ Ibid, 231
  22. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, Debunking FairMormon under "Witnesses"
  23. ↑ Nathan Tanner Jr. Journal, 13 April 1886.
  24. ↑ Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Indiana: 1888): 73-4; in David Whitmer Interviews. A Restoration Witness. Lyndon W. Cook, Editor (Grandin Books, Orem, Utah, 1991): 246-7 Quoted in Early Mormon Documents 5:193. Also quoted in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), p. 86.
  25. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Not Joseph's, and Not Modern," in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon, edited by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), Chapter 2, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
  26. ↑ "I.C. Funn," [John Whitmer Testimony], Kingston (MO) Sentinel, ca. January 1878, reprinted in Saints' Herald 25 (15 February 1878): 57; cited in Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 5:245.
  27. ↑ Letter of Hiram Page to William E. McLellin (30 May 1847), Ray County, Mo.; cited in Ensign of Liberty 1 (1848): 63.
  28. ↑ Andrew Jenson, Historical Record (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888), 7:614.

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5


Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5


Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5


Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 5


Response to claim: 109 - No visions actually occurred in the Kirtland Temple. William McClellin claimed that there was "no endowment"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

No visions actually occurred in the Kirtland Temple. William McClellin claimed that there was "no endowment."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Tanners are again arguing without any evidence. To do this, they must ignore a mound of first person contemporaneous testimony.
  • Steven C. Harper, "Pentecost Continued: A Contemporaneous Account of the Kirtland Temple Dedication," Brigham Young University Studies 42 no. 2 (2003), 4–.
  • Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1830–1838 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1983), 309–. ISBN 0877479739 GospeLink

Question: Was William McClellin disappointed in the endowment at the Kirtland Temple?

William McLellin was disappointed in the endowment, because McLellin did not receive what he sought

McLellin was among the first apostles called in this dispensation, on 14 February 1835.[1] McLellin was present for the dedication, but was disappointed with it. He wrote, "We passed through it [the Kirtland endowment]; but I, in all candor say, we were most egregiosly mistaken or disappointed!"[2] McLellin went on to describe the reason for his disappointment:

In a few days I said to Joseph: "I am disappointed! I supposed—yet, I believed that during the endowment, I should get knowledge but I have not."

He said to me, "What do you want?"

I said, "I want to know for myself (italics in original)."[3]

There is no mention here of those who claim to receive knowledge being drunk—we learn only that McLellin did not receive what he sought. This was a recurring theme of McLellin's—he often mentioned the endowment and the fact that it was a disappointment, or did not achieve what was anticipated. For example:

Feb 1847
McLellin forms "Church of Christ" with Martin Harris and others. The new Church faults Joseph Smith for "Engineering the 'endowment' at the Kirtland Temple in March and April 1836, which failed to meet expectation because the Lord would not endow His spirit in those who had drifted so far from divine purpose."[4]
1870
"disappointed" because he did not know for himself.[5]
December 1878
"I told him [Joseph] I wanted knowledge and power from God; that as an Apostle I might go forth to the nationis of the earth, and preach to them in their own lip the pure gospel of the Lord."[6]
1880
"I don't believe, in the attempted endowment in the Temple in Kirtland in 1836. It was an entire failure."[7]
1880
"I do not believe in the authority that dedicated Zion or the Temple in Kirtland. There was no power from God shown forth in those pretended dedications; as was seen and known when Solomon's Temple was dedicated in Jerusalem. If ceremony and nothing but form was seen in Joseph's dedications then we are prepared to say they were not of God; but only manism and nothing more.[8]


Response to claim: 111 - Material from the Presbyterian "Westminster Confession" is "probably" the source for Alma 40

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Material from the Presbyterian "Westminster Confession" is "probably" the source for Alma 40.

Author's sources:
  1. Westminster Confession; Alma 40

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence.


Question: Was the content of Alma Chapter 40 derived from a Presbyterian document called The Westminster Confession?

If Joseph were attempting to plagiarize The Westminster Confession, he ought to have taken the easier route of duplicating entire sentences or even paragraphs in the manner that the critics accuse him of doing with passages from Isaiah

When one considers the short amount of time in which production of the Book of Mormon was completed, it is not reasonable to believe that such detailed and difficult method of generating text was a factor in the process even if one does not believe in the book's divine origin. If Joseph were attempting to plagiarize The Westminster Confession, he ought to have taken the easier route of duplicating entire sentences or even paragraphs in the manner that the critics accuse him of doing with passages from Isaiah. Why would Joseph “plagiarize” a well known source such as the Bible so precisely, yet go through a potentially slow and difficult process of extracting phrases and ideas from a lesser known source in order to produce a few verses in a single book in the Book of Mormon?

Critics can always find “source material” for the Book of Mormon if they extract small enough phrases from their alleged source documents. Since both the Book of Mormon and The Westminster Confessional are religious documents, it is not unreasonable to expect similar words and phrases.

The critics would have us believe that Joseph Smith read the first two verses in Chapter 32 of The Westminster Confession, and then produced Alma 40:11, 13, 14 and 20

The critics would have us believe that Joseph Smith read the first two verses in Chapter 32 of The Westminster Confession, and then produced Alma 40:11, 13, 14 and 20. In addition to the verses shown, it is indicated by the critics that there is much additional material that shows a relationship between the two texts. The following is a comparison of the verses shown in Alma 40 and The Westminster Confession, Chapter 32:1-2 as they are presented and arranged by the critics:

Alma 40:11, 12, 13, 14 and 20 The Westminster Confession Chapter 32 Verses 1-2
"... 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, Title)
"... 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)
"... 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)
"... 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)
"... 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)
"... the souls and the bodies are re-united,..." (Alma 40:20) "... bodies ...shall be united again to their souls..." (Westminster Confessions 32:2)

Notice the careful and extensive use of ellipses in order to string together various short phrases from the two sources in order to force a similarity. When arranged in this manner, the "similarities" look obvious. However, by examining the full text of the verses from both Alma 40 and The Westminster Confession Chapter 32, we see a much more convoluted comparison (Phrases which are claimed to be similar between the two texts are highlighted in bold).


Alma 40:11, 12, 13, 14 and 20 The Westminster Confession Chapter 32 Verses 1-2
11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. (Alma 40:11)

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

15-19...

20 Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.

CHAPTER XXXII. Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead.

I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.


II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever. "

This tortured comparison represents only five verses across a span of ten verses in a single chapter in Alma against two verses in The Westminster Confession

It is difficult to believe or accept the convoluted process that Joseph Smith would have had to go through in order to produce completely coherent text in Alma 40 verses 11-20 while selectively stealing ideas and phrases from the verses highlighted in The Westminster Confession. Furthermore, one should not be surprised to see words such as "soul," "spirit," "wicked," "resurrection," and "mortal" used in two different religious texts.

One short phrase which could be claimed to have been copied verbatim into the Book of Mormon from the Westminster Confession in the verses shown above: "God who gave." However, the same claim could be made that this phrase was copied from Ecclesiastes 12:7:

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7) (emphasis added)

To make a comparison at this level of sentence breakdown becomes an exercise in absurdity.


Response to claim: 114 - Joseph is claimed to have copied the name "Nephi" from the Apocrypha

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Joseph is claimed to have copied the name "Nephi" from the Apocrypha.

Author's sources:
  1. Authors' opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence.


Question: Did Joseph Smith copy the name "Nephi" from the Apocrypha?

The name “Nephi” may be derived from the names “Nfr” (meaning “good”) or “Nfw,” (meaning “captain”), which are both attested Egyptian names appropriate to the time and place in which Nephi existed

It is certainly possible that Joseph may have encountered the name Nephi as a place name in the King James translation of the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees), however, the Book of Mormon also includes many names that are present in the King James Bible itself. The inclusion of one additional name in this list does not make a significant difference in accusations that Joseph acquired names in the Book of Mormon from other sources. With regard to the name “Nephi,” the important question that must be considered is whether the name “Nephi” is an appropriate name for the time and place to which it is attributed in the Book of Mormon?[9]

Nephi acknowledges an Egyptian connection when he states, “Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.” 1 Nephi 1꞉2

The name “Nephi” may be derived from the names “Nfr” (meaning “good”) or “Nfw,” (meaning “captain”), which are both attested Egyptian names appropriate to the time and place in which Nephi existed.[10] Therefore, the inclusion of the name "Nephi" in the Book of Mormon in the timeframe of 600 B.C. does not constitute an anachronism.

The presence of the name "Nephi" is appropriate for the time and place described by the Book of Mormon. Existing evidence indicates that an Apocrypha was not even available to Joseph Smith at the time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. If anything, the presence of the name "Nephi" in the Apocrypha further validates it as an authentic name in the Book of Mormon.


Response to claim: 115 - The story of Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt is claimed to be the source for the book of 1 Nephi

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The story of Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt is claimed to be the source for the book of 1 Nephi.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence. If this is so, where is the parting the sea? The ten plagues? The earth opening up to swallow the rebellious? Water from a rock? Manna from heaven? Joseph ignored the best, most dramatic parts. Nephi consciously modeled his family on the Israelites, so some parallels are to be expected—only an initial belief that the book is a forgery makes this argument work. It is circular.


Response to claim: 115 - The Book of Mormon is proven false because it quotes Malachi many years before it was written

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon is proven false because it quotes Malachi many years before it was written.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Book of Mormon does not attribute the words to Malachi.


Articles about the Book of Mormon
Authorship
Translation process
Gold plates
Witnesses
The Bible and the Book of Mormon
Language and the Book of Mormon
Geography
DNA
Anachronisms
Doctrine and teachings
Lamanites
Other

Articles about the Holy Bible
Latter-day Saints and the Bible
Reliability of the Bible
Creation
Genesis
Understanding the Bible
Cultural issues
The Bible and the Book of Mormon


Introduction

Does the Book of Mormon plagiarize the King James Bible?

The Book of Mormon emulates the language and style of the King James Bible because that is the scriptural style Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was familiar with

The Book of Mormon and the Bible testify of each other, reinforcing a single message of good news to the world.

Critics of the Book of Mormon write that major portions of it are copied, without attribution, from the Bible. They argue that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing the Authorized ("King James") Version of the Bible.

Hugh Nibley: "As to the 'passages lifted bodily from the King James Version,' we first ask, 'How else does one quote scripture if not bodily:'"

In 1961, LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote:

[One of the] most devastating argument[s] against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations.

...to quote another writer of Christianity Today [magazine],[11] "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," and that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well.

How can scripture be cited except 'bodily':

As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily:" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them:

Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext: Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original: Do they give their own inspired translations: No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so: Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.

Prophets usually use the version of scripture with which their audience is familiar

We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age have been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.

Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.

What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language.

"Faith, hope, and charity" from the New Testament:

But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7꞉45: Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13:] is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.

Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.

Why KJV English:

Now as to [the] question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language:"

The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.

∗       ∗       ∗

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it: That is scripture, too.

One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read: "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."[12]

Even professional translators will lapse into the scriptural language that they know

Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.

At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."[13] Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom. [A more recent example of the same phenomenon in the twenty-first century is discussed here.]

By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English![14]

Quotations from the Bible in the Book of Mormon are sometimes uncited quotes from Old Testament prophets on the brass plates, similar to the many unattributed Old Testament quotes in the New Testament; others may be similar phrasing emulated by Joseph Smith during his translation.

Oddly enough, this does not mean that Joseph Smith simply plagiarized from the KJV. Using the Original and Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saint scholar Royal Skousen has identified that none of the King James language contained in the Book of Mormon could have been copied directly from the Bible. He deduces this from the fact that when quoting, echoing, or alluding to the passages, Oliver (Joseph's amanuensis for the dictation of the Book of Mormon) consistently misspells certain words from the text that he wouldn't have misspelled if he was looking at the then-current edition of the KJV.[15]

Even if all the biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one book—the Bible—which his readership was sure to recognize: The Book of Mormon itself declares that it came forth in part to support the Bible (2 Nephi 9). Perhaps the inclusion of KJV text can show it engaging the Bible rather than just cribbing from it. If we didn't get some KJV text, we might think that the Nephites were trying to communicate an entirely different message.

A Proposed Scenario

Skousen proposes that, rather than looking at a Bible (the absence of a Bible now near-definitively confirmed by the manuscript evidence and the unequivocal statements of witnesses to the translation to the Book of Mormon), Joseph was provided a page of text via his gift of seership. This page of text contained, in this view, the King James Bible text. Joseph was then free to alter the text for his audience. Thus:

  • As Joseph was translating the text of the Book of Mormon, he encounter something that was being roughly similar to texts from the Bible. This would occur most prominently when Nephi quotes from Isaiah.
  • Instead of translating Nephi's quotations of Isaiah word-for-word, the Lord gave the passages from Isaiah as contained in the KJV. Reasons for which this may have been done are discussed earlier in this article.
  • Consequently, the Isaiah chapters on Nephi's plates would have looked slightly different from the Isaiah chapters that we have now in the Book of Mormon. Nephi's version of Isaiah 8꞉52 would have been the primitive, early version written by 1st Isaiah. The version of Isaiah 8꞉52 that we have now in the Book of Mormon would not then be taken directly from Nephi's plates, but rather adapted from the KJV Bible as described.
Learn more about biblical allusions or citation in the Book of Mormon
FAIR links
  • Ben McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi," Proceedings of the 2001 FAIR Conference (August 2001). link
  • Sara Riley, "“Even as Moses’ Did”: The Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
Online
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books," farms.byu.edu off-site.
  • Learn More About Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon off-site.
  • Royal Skousen, "The History of the Book of Mormon Text: Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text" off-site.
  • Standford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles" off-site.
  • Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader" off-site.
Video

Navigators

See also:The New Testament and the Book of Mormon

General questions


Characters

Did Joseph Smith use characters from the Bible as templates for the characters in the Book of Mormon:

Critic Fawn Brodie claimed:

Many stories [Joseph Smith] borrowed from the Bible [for the creation of the Book of Mormon]. The daughter of Jared, like Salome, danced before a king and a decapitation followed. Aminadi, like Daniel, deciphered handwriting on a wall, and Alma was converted after the exact fashion of St. Paul. The daughters of the Lamanites were abducted like the dancing daughters of Shiloh; and Ammon, like the American counterpart of David, for want of a Goliath slew six sheep-rustlers with his sling.[16]

When deciding whether Joseph used characters from the bible as templates we should remember a few things.

Problems with parallels

Similarities do not necessarily imply causal influence. Literary scholars have long considered the question of how to tell if two texts have influenced each other.[17]

It was once popular to list elements found in both texts in table form and 'compare' the similarities or parallels. This is now discouraged as it tends to what is called 'parallelomania.' Ben McGuire quoted Everett Ferguson on this technique's use on Christianity:

another image from geometry that has been used to describe the relation of Christianity to its context is “parallels,” and these have caused various concerns to modern readers. This volume will call attention to a number of similarities between Christianity and various aspects of its environment. Many more could have been included, and probably many more than are currently recognized will become known as a result of further study and future discoveries. What is to be made of these parallels? Do they explain away Christianity as a natural product of its environment? Must they be explained away in order to defend the truth or validity of Christianity? Neither position is necessary. . . . The kind and significance of the parallels may be further clarified by commenting on the cultural parallels. That Christians observed the same customs and used words in the same way as their contemporaries is hardly noteworthy in itself. Those things belonged to the place and time when Christianity began. The situation could not have been otherwise for Christianity to have been a real historical phenomenon, open now to historical study. To expect the situation to have been otherwise would require Christianity to be something other than it is, a historical religion. Indeed, if Christianity did not have these linguistic and cultural contacts with the first-century Mediterranean world the presumption would be that it was a fiction originating in another time and place.[18]

If this is true of Christianity in general, it is even more so for the restored Church of Jesus Christ whose origins are recent, and for whom supposed parallels will be even easier to find, but no less misleading.

As McGuire explains:

Simply stated, on some level we can find a parallel to any source. An author may not recognize another’s text in his writings at all—even if parallels may be found. This isn’t to say that there isn’t literary plagiarism. But, the concern here is with mistakenly finding it when it may not actually have occurred. ...[19]:29

He goes on to quote W.H. Bennett, who provides two warnings applicable to our question. The first cautions:

(Many alleged parallels are entirely irrelevant, and are only such as must naturally exist between works in the same language, by authors of the same race, acquainted with the history and literature, customs and traditions which were earlier than both of them. . . .[20]

This is of major importance in trying to determine whether biblical characters are the source of Book of Mormon ones. Why? Because the Book of Mormon claims to share a culture, religious outlook, and textual tradition with the bible.

It would therefore be unsurprising that a similar environment created similar themes, characters, and situations.

This becomes even more likely when we realize that a major part of ancient Hebrew writing was the type scene.

What is a "type scene"?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #414: How Does the Book of Mormon Use an Ancient Storytelling Technique: (Video)

Book of Mormon Central has produced an excellent article that may explain this type of "plagiarism" in the Book of Mormon. That article is reproduced in full (including citations for easy reference) below:

In Genesis 4, Abraham sent his servant to a foreign land to find a wife for Isaac. When he got there, he met a girl named Rebekah at a well, she drew water for him, she ran off to tell her family about it, and later she and Isaac were betrothed. Something similar happened to Jacob. He went to a foreign land to find a wife, he met Rachael by a well, he drew water for her, she ran to tell her family, and Jacob and Rachael were betrothed (see Genesis 9). As with all true stories, the author could have told these stories in many different ways.[21] However, the reason these two stories are so similar is because they are both based on the same pattern, called a type-scene.[22]
A type-scene is an ancient storytelling technique where certain kinds of stories are told in certain ways.[23] The ancient audience expected that when a main character got engaged, for example, he would journey to a foreign land, encounter a woman at a well, and draw water from the well.[24] Then the woman would rush home to tell the family, and the man and the woman would be betrothed.[24]:62 However, each time the storyteller applied this type-scene to a new character, they would change the story slightly. This allowed the type-scene to fit each character’s historical circumstances, but also gave insights into the personalities of each character in the story.[25]
For instance, biblical scholar Robert Alter noted that "it is only in [Isaac's] betrothal scene that the girl, not the stranger, draws water from the well."[24]:64 This fits well with what we see Rebekah doing later, when she took "the initiative at a crucial moment in the story in order to obtain the paternal blessing for her favored son, Jacob."[24]:64 Ultimately, "Rebekah is to become the shrewdest and the most potent of the matriarchs, and so it is entirely appropriate that she should dominate her betrothal scene."[26] The more these stories differ from the basic type-scene, the more one can expect that the characters in the scene will turn out differently than expected.[27]
Alan Goff has pointed out a radically different, but still recognizable, version of this type scene in Alma 7.[28] Just as in the classic type-scene, Ammon went to a foreign land, but in this case, he went to preach the gospel (Alma 17꞉12).[28]:105 Although Ammon did not meet a woman there, the king offered Ammon his daughter in marriage, but he declined (v. 24).[29] Shortly thereafter, Ammon went to the waters of Sebus, rather than a well, to water the flocks (v. 26).[30] Finally, instead of the woman returning to tell the family about the presence of a potential suitor, the servants returned to the king with the arms of the would-be sheep rustlers (v. 39).[31]
The differences between the basic type-scene and the Ammon story teach us much about Ammon and how we can be like him. Instead of going to a foreign land to find a wife, Ammon went to a foreign land to preach the gospel. When he got there and was offered the hand of the princess, he declined, stating that he wished to work for the king of the Lamanites instead. In addition to simply drawing water for the flocks, he saved them at the peril of his own life. Finally, those present at the watering of the flocks returned to tell the king not about Ammon as a potential suitor, but about the power of God that was with him.
The Ammon story takes the type-scene, in which the hero is simply trying to find a wife, and turns it on its head. Everything Ammon does in the story is done for selfless reasons. The last part of the type-scene, in which the hero becomes betrothed, is conspicuous by its absence. Ammon does not become betrothed at the end of the story because that was not his purpose in traveling to the land of the Lamanites. He went to the Lamanites to preach the gospel and remained focused on that goal the entire time he was in Lamanite lands.
It is easy for us to become so focused on ourselves and our own needs that we rarely think about those around us. Mormon’s masterful reworking of this type-scene reminds us all of the importance of putting others first. If we will all replace selfishness with selflessness, like Ammon did, we can be a true force for good in the lives of those around us and have the power of God with us in our lives, like Ammon did.

Book of Mormon Central has also produced this video on the subject:


A second caution

We will return to the idea of "type scenes" when we consider specific examples. But first we will consider the second of W.H. Bennett's cautions about finding supposed sources for parallel accounts:

In considering two similar passages, A and B, there are at least three possible explanations of their resemblance. A may be dependent on B, or B on A, or both A and B may be dependent on something prior to both of them. A critic with a theory—and everybody starts with a prepossession in favour of some theory —is tempted to take for granted that the relation of the parallel passages is in accordance with his theory. If he holds that B is older than A, it seems to him that A is so obviously dependent on B, that this dependence proves the early date of B. But, as a rule, it is very difficult to determine which of two similar passages is dependent on the other. Often the question can only be settled by our knowledge that one passage is taken from an earlier work than the other; and where we do not possess such knowledge the priority is quite uncertain, and a comparison of the passages yields little or no evidence as to the date of the documents in which they occur. . . ..[32]

Bennett insists that we cannot approach a text without a theory—and critics of the Book of Mormon have a theory that it is a forgery. Thus, they conclude that the Book of Mormon (A) is dependent on the King James Bible characters(B), since the KJV was certainly published before the Book of Mormon.

Once they conclude that these are "so obviously dependent" on the Bible, it becomes a simple matters to convince oneself that these parallels prove plagiarism or influence. But it is equally possible for such characters to both be type-scene characters (as discussed in the previous section). In that case, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are dependent upon something else that predates them—the type scene.

Or, as we saw with the example with the "duplicate" kings of England, many themes and stories and personalities recur in history. If an ancient author is looking for type-scenes, then they will emphasize the similarities even further, misleading the zealous critic into thinking they have found a smoking gun.

Specific Book of Mormon type-scenes

We will now consider some specific examples of type scenes, examining both the similarities and the differences between them and the biblical 'parallels'.

The Daughter of Jared and Salome

BYU Professor Nicholas J. Frederick addressed this very question in the book Illuminating the Jaredite Records published by the Book of Mormon Academy.[33]:236–51

Frederick points out that similarities do exist. Both stories involve:

  1. An unnamed daughter
  2. A female performing a dance before a powerful male figure
  3. Demands for decapitation—one realized, the other foiled
  4. Revenge against a perceived injustice
  5. Swearing of oaths with unfortunate consequences (the beheading of John the Baptist and the destruction of the Jaredites).

But Frederick also points out important dissimilarities—we might call these the unparallels:

  1. Who is the instigator? "[I]n Ether 8 the daughters of Jared is the primary actor; it is she who puts the evil ideas into her father's head and dances before Akish. In Mark's account Salome acts at her mother's behest and presumably does not know that her dance will result in John's death until her mother instructs her after the dance to ask for John's head (see 6꞉24). She is as much of a pawn in her mother's game as Herod is. Because of this, the daughter of Jared seems to occupy the position or role of both Herodias and Salome , as if both figures were collapsed into one Jaredite female."[33]:239
  2. The audience of the dance: "Salome dances for her father and his friends, while the daughter of Jared dances for a potential husband. The presence of Herod's guests presumably ensures that Salome's request will not be dismissed, an action that would likely have caused Herod to lose face. The daughters of Jared, in the same fashion, has exactly the audience she requires."[33]:239
  3. The nature of the request: "Herod is clearly uncomfortable offering up John's head, but he has little choice—his promise must be kept. Akish appears completely comfortable with the request to carry out the murderous plot, as are, one assumes, both Jared and his daughter."[33]:239
  4. The nature of the dance itself: "The daughter of Jared's dance is prefaced by Moroni's statement that Jared's daughter was "exceedingly fair," suggesting a likely sensual element to her dance, on that is expected to appeal to Akish and that will lead to his matrimonial request. While there is nothing in the text to suggest a salaciousness to the dance itself, it does appear designed to highlight the woman's physical attractiveness. In contrast, Salome is described simply as a 'damsel' (Mark 6꞉22), and no mention is made of her physical appearance. Nor is there any suggestion that her dance was in any way seductive or erotic, only that it 'pleased Herod' (v. 22). Again, to suggest without textual evidence that Salome's dance contained a lascivious element or that it was, in the words of one scholar, 'hardly more than a striptease' is to surely go beyond the mark."[33]:239

Frederick proposes a few possible scenarios to answer the question of how we got a story this similar to Salome in the Book of Mormon:

  1. Salome is a direct analogue for the daughter of Jared. This idea, as observed by Frederick, simply does not work.
  2. The daughter of Jared as a blend of both Herodias and Salome, a move that combines these two women into one remarkable figure. Yet even then the daughter of Jared is more Herodias than Salome. The dance itself is the only contribution of Salome to the daughter of Jared's story.
  3. Joseph Smith drawing on the Salome story in the nineteenth century with its oversexualized portrayal of Salome. Yet even this does not do the daughter or Jared justice. The daughter of Jared is depicted as calm, shrewd, devoted, knowledgeable, and self-sacrificing. She may be beautiful, but her beauty is one of her features; it does not define her.

Hugh Nibley writes that the account of the daughter of Jared is more similar to ancient accounts that use the same motifs of the dancing princess, old king, and challenger to the throne of the king. That is, this could be a case in which both the bible and the Book of Mormon account are drawing on a third, even older, source—the type-scene.

This is indeed a strange and terrible tradition of throne succession, yet there is no better attested tradition in the early world than the ritual of the dancing princess (represented by the salme priestess of the Babylonians, hence the name Salome) who wins the heart of a stranger and induces him to marry her, behead the whole king, and mount the throne. I once collected a huge dossier on this awful woman and even read a paper on her at an annual meeting of the American Historical Association.[34] You find out all about the sordid triangle of the old king, the challenger, and the dancing beauty from Frazer, Jane Harrison, Altheim, B. Chweitzer, Franell, and any number of folklorists.[35] The thing to note especially is that there actually seems to have been a succession rite of great antiquity that followed this pattern. It is the story behind the rites at Olympia and Ara Sacra and the wanton and shocking dances of the ritual hierodules throughout the ancient world.[36] Though it is not without actual historical parallels, as when in A.D. 998 the sister of the khalif obtained as a gift the head of the ruler of Syria,[37] the episode of the a dancing princess is at all times essentially a ritual, and the name of Salome is perhaps no accident, for her story is anything but unique. Certainly the book of Ether is on the soundest possible ground in attributing the behavior of the daughter of Jared to the inspiration of ritual texts – secret directories on the art of deposing an aging king. The Jaredite version, incidentally, is quite different from the Salome story of the Bible, but is identical with many earlier accounts that have come down to us in the oldest records of civilization.[38]

Aminadi and Daniel

The single 'parallel'—that both men interpreted the writings of God on a wall—is tenuous. Parallel aspects do not equal dependency, unless we assume what we set out to prove.

Brant A. Gardner observes:

The story of Aminadi [in Alma 10꞉2-3] clearly parallels Daniel 5꞉5-17 with a prophet interpreting Yahweh's writing on a wall, although there is no language dependency. There can be no textual dependency because Daniel describes events during the Babylonian captivity that postdates Lehi's departure from Jerusalem. Just as Alma's conversion experience was similar to, but different from, Paul's (see commentary accompanying Mosiah 27꞉10-11), it is probable that, if we had a fuller version of Aminadi's story, we would see both similarities and differences.[39]

Ammon and David

The only similarity between these two stories is that both men killed another individual or group with a sling. How many stories can we find authored before the Book of Mormon was translated where a protagonist defeats an antagonist with a sling? Hundreds. The comparison is flimsy at best, and probably included simply to increase the number of "hits" in order to create the impression of even more numerous problems.

(This is part of a fallacious debating technique known as the Gish Gallop.)

The daughters of the Lamanites and the dancing daughters of Shiloh

French illuminated manuscript (1244-1254) of the Benjaminite arriving with his concubine in Gibeah. This is a benign beginning to a horrific account. From "The Morgan Bible."

Latter-day Saint philosopher Alan Goff wrote a short chapter on this parallel back in 1991:

A minor story in the Book of Mormon provides an example of how complex the task of reading the book can be. It also illustrates how much richer our understand­ing can be when we remember that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record with connections to other ancient records, par­ticularly the Old Testament. In the book of Mosiah, a band of wicked priests hid in the wilderness and kidnapped some young women to be their wives (see Mosiah 20꞉1-5). This story can be read as an adventure tale. If looked at carefully, however, it shows the kind of connections between the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament that demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book.

The story of kidnapping by the wicked priests is a minor part of the record of the people of Zeniff. When King Noah, ruler over the Zeniffites, rejected the prophet Abinadi's message and had him killed, the priest Alma and his followers separated from the rest of the people. Soon thereafter, the Lamanites at­tacked the people of Zeniff. As they fled from the Lamanites, King Noah commanded them to abandon their families. Instead, they executed Noah and attempted to kill his priests (see Mosiah 19꞉19-21). These priests escaped into the wilderness, led by Amulon, one of their number, and later kidnapped some daughter sof the Lamanites to be their wives. Angered by the kidnapping and assuming the Zeniffites were guilty, the Lamanites attacked them. Peace was restored when the Lamanites learned who the real kidnappers were (see Mosiah 20꞉26).

To allow the tribe of Benjamin to survive after they had vowed not to marry their daughters to them, the Israelites arranged a "bride theft" event to get around the vow. (Illustration from :Gustav Doré, "Abduction of the girls at Shiloh," La Grande Bible de Tours (1866).)

A Biblical Parallel

This story of the abduction of young Lamanite women is similar to a story in the Bible in which men from the tribe of Benjamin kidnap daughters of Israel at Shiloh. The end of the book of Judges contains three stories about the tribe of Benjamin. In the first, Benjaminites abused and murdered a Levite con­cubine (see Judges 20). In the second, the other eleven tribes gathered to punish the offenders, and a civil war resulted (see Judges 19). The third story tells of the kidnapping (see Judges 1).

After destroying most of the tribe of Benjamin, the Israelites realized that this tribe was in danger of extinction. To preserve the tribe, the Benjaminites needed wives. But the Israelites had vowed not to allow their daughters to marry the Benjaminites. To get around their vow, they instructed the Benjaminites to kidnap the daughters of the Israelites who lived at Shiloh while the young women danced in the vineyards. As the daughters of Shiloh gathered, the Benjaminites lay hidden. The girls danced, and the Benjaminites stole them to be their wives.

The Stealing of the Daughters of the Lamanites

The similarities between the stories in Mosiah and Judges are complex and carefully stated:

Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Beth­el, on the east side of the high­way that goeth up from Beth­el to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; and see, and behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin (Judges 21꞉19-21). Now there was a place in Shemlon where the daughters of the Lamanites did gather themselves together to sing, and to dance, and to make themselves merry. And it came to pass that there was one day a small number of them gathered together to sing and to dance (Mosiah 20꞉1-2).

The Bible clearly mentions the incident as a yearly ritual. The Book of Mormon mentions it as a regular occurrence, not telling us how often ("one day"). In both stories the kidnapped virgins became the wives of the abductors. The record says that the priests of Noah, "being ashamed to return to the city of Nephi, yea, and also fearing that the people would slay them, therefore they durst not return to their wives and their children" (Mosiah 20꞉3), so they watched the dancers and kidnapped sub­stitute wives. When the narrative returned to the story of Amulon and his fellow priests, the daughters of the Lamanites were then called "their wives" (Mosiah 23꞉33).

In both stories, the abductors, like peeping toms, waited and watched the spectacle. The Benjaminites lay in wait in the vine­yards watching the dancing. The wicked priests also found the place where the girls danced, then "they laid and watched them" (Mosiah 20꞉4). We know that the priests hid because in the next verse they "came forth out of their secret places" and abducted twenty-four of the dancing maidens. Not only is the watching stressed in both stories, but also the lying in wait. These were not crimes of passion, but ones of premeditation.

The Meaning of Parallels

Some Book of Mormon critics have seen the parallels between the two stories and concluded that Joseph Smith merely copied the story from Judges, they conclude that any similarities in stories indicate plagiarism. Biblical scholars take a more sophis­ticated approach than do these critics to texts that may appear to borrow from other texts. Scholars often see similarities be­tween stories as evidence of the writer's sophistication and of the richness of the text.

For example, the first of the stories about the Benjaminites, telling of the rape and death of a concubine, is similar to an earlier Bible story of Lot and his two visitors at Sodom. The story in Judges tells of a Levite and his concubine who were returning home from a visit to her father's house in Bethlehem. At a late hour they arrived at Gibeah, a Benjaminite city. Only one old man was willing to take the travelers in. As the host entertained, the men of the city gathered outside and demanded that the host bring the Levite outside so they could rape him. The host protested this violation of the law of hospitality and offered his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine as substitutes. The Levite instead pushed his concubine out to the mob, who "abused her all the night until the morning" (Judges 19:25). In the morning she was dead.

This story is obviously similar to the story of Lot's visitors in Genesis 19. In both stories the guests were taken in, the inhabitants of the cities threatened a homosexual rape, and the host offered two women as substitutes to spare the men. Ob­viously readers are meant to see a relationship between the two stories. Biblical scholars see this as an example of conscious borrowing intended both to enhance the meaning of the second story and to emphasize how wicked Gibeah had become. The story in Genesis 19 can easily be read and understood with no awareness of the story in Judges 19, but to understand Judges 19 in any complete way the reader must see the connection to Sodom. The Levite was portrayed unfavorably compared to Lot's divine visitors. The visitors to Sodom effected a divine rescue, while the Levite threw out his own concubine to save himself.[40]

I believe that, in a similar way, the story of the abduction in Mosiah means more when we see it light of the story in Judges. I feel that the author of the story in Mosiah borrowed consciously from the story in Judges, which he knew from the plates of brass, to help make his point.

The story of the abduction of the daughters of Shiloh is the final story in Judges. One of the main purposes of Judges was to justify the establishment of a king. Judges described the evil the Israelites did in the Lord's sight (see Judges 3꞉7 4꞉1), ex­plaining that they did evil because there was no king over the people (see Judges 17꞉6; 18꞉1). Judges ends with three stories about the tribe of Benjamin that illustrate this evil. The stories are preceded by a statement about the lack of a king over the land: "And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel. . . " (Judges 19꞉1). The third story ends with a similar statement: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21꞉25). The topsy-turvy world described in Judges 17-Judges 21 dem­onstrates that doing what is right in one's own eyes is often the same thing as doing what is evil in the Lord's eyes.[41]

By emphasizing parallels to the kidnapping story in Judges, the author of the story in Mosiah seems to me to have strength­ened the moral point. The wicked priests led by Amulon were also evil, doing what was right in their own eyes rather than following the Lord.

Other Parallels

Understandably, the text shows disapproval of all that Amu­lon and his fellow priests did. The parallel case from Judges of doing what is right in man's eyes is only one way the text shows this disapproval. There are other parallels that further discredit Amulon and his companions.

After the Lamanites captured Amulon and his people, the record states that "Amulon did gain favor in the eyes of the king of the Lamanites" (Mosiah 24꞉1). In gaining the favor of the Lamanites, these priests clearly lost favor with God. There is a note of disapproval in the narrator's words when he says that the people of Amulon not only found favor in the eyes of the Lamanite king, but also that the king appointed these men to be teachers over all his people (see Mosiah 24꞉1). As teachers, these priests taught the Lamanites the language of the Nephites (see Mosiah 24꞉4), "nevertheless they knew not God; neither did the brethren of Amulon teach them anything concerning the Lord their God, neither the law of Moses; nor did they teach them the words of Abinadi" (Mosiah 24꞉5).

On the other hand, Alma taught his people how God de­livered both the followers of Limhi and Alma out of bondage (see Mosiah 25꞉10,16). He also taught them "repentance and faith on the Lord" (Mosiah 25:15) as he organized them into congregations. The author emphasizes how different from Alma the priests of Noah were. He says directly that the priests of Noah didn't teach the Lamanites Abinadi's words. He also spe­cifically mentions that Alma "went about privately among the people, and began to teach the words of Abinadi" (Mosiah 18꞉1). Both Alma and Amulon entered the narrative as priests of Noah. Upon hearing the words of Abinadi, Alma repented, but Amulon refused to repent. Alma taught the prophet's words in secret, while Amulon and his priests utterly refused to teach them to the Lamanites.

The reader is led to see the contrasting lives, not just of Alma and Amulon, but of the people of Limhi and Alma and the people of Amulon. Both Alma and Amulon led colonies into the wil­derness: Alma and his people, when Noah's soldiers discovered their "movement," "took their tents and their families and de­parted into the wilderness" (Mosiah 18꞉32,34). Amulon and his followers also fled into the wilderness, but at Noah's command they left their families behind (see Mosiah 19꞉11-23).

The wicked priests abandoned their wives when King Noah "commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children, and flee before the Lamanites" (Mosiah 19꞉11), then they went about trying to find substitute wives. The other Zeniffites would rather have perished than leave their wives and children behind (see Mosiah 19:12). Thus those who remained behind "caused that their fair daughters should stand forth and plead with the Lamanites that they would not slay them" (Mosiah 19:13). The daughters inspired "compassion" among the Lamanites, for they "were charmed with the beauty of their women" (Mosiah 19:14). Later, Amulon would do the same thing, sending out the Lamanite daughters he and the other priests had kidnapped to plead for mercy (see Mosiah 23꞉33-34).

The text has set up parallel examples for the reader to com­pare. The Zeniffites sent men out to find those who had fled their children and wives, "all save the king and his priests" (Mosiah 19꞉18), and had vowed that they would return to their wives and children or die seeking revenge if the Lamanites had killed them (Mosiah 19꞉19). The parallel stories of sending the two sets of daughters to beg for mercy from the Lamanites teach the reader that what appear to be the same actions actually differ when performed by the good-hearted on the one hand or the evil-hearted on the other.

When we compare the people as the text invites us to do, we contrast the care the men of Limhi showed for their wives and children with the abandonment by the priests of Noah. All of these events define the lack of moral character of the priests. The fact that the Lamanite king was willing to permit the stealing of the Lamanite daughters by welcoming Amulon and the priests into his kingdom speaks badly of this king, just as the Israelites' encouragement of the Benjaminites to kidnap their own daugh­ters speaks badly of all Israel. The people of Limhi, on the other hand, "fought for their lives, and for their wives, and for their children" (Mosiah 20꞉11). These differences reveal not only the character of the priests of Noah, who abandoned their families rather than fall into Lamanite hands, but also of the Nephites, who decided to face death with their families rather than aban­don them.

The text is clearly unsympathetic to the people of Amulon. The connection between the two stories of abduction is a hint from the author that their actions were reminiscent of a time, reported in Judges, when the Israelites didn't follow God's law but did what was right in their own eyes. The priests are por­trayed as indifferent to God, in spite of their position, which should have made them more anxious to follow God.

The Book of Mormon story of the stealing of the Lamanite daughters cannot be accounted for by the simplistic claim that it was just copied from the Bible. The Book of Mormon makes sophisticated use of the story to make its own point. Critics of the Book of Mormon believe that the author of the text used the earlier story from Judges, and I agree. But unlike them, I believe that the parallel enhances the book and reveals it to be an ancient document rather than a modern imitation.[42]

Goff has more recently treated this episode in more detail, with a thorough discussion of type-scenes and judging the value of readings that assume parallels by plagiarism.[43]

Alma and Paul

This parallel has received the largest amount of attention from critics, apologists, and other scholars.

Paul's dramatic experience on the road to Damascus turned him into a Christian and perhaps the faith's most influential missionary. Despite the artist's dramatic use of horses, there's no evidence that Paul was riding as he travelled on his mission to persecute Christians. (Image: Luca Giordano, "The Conversion of St. Paul," (1690).)

The Book of Mormon records the conversion and ministry of a young man named Alma. Alma goes about trying to lead people away from God's church. An angel appears, causing Alma and his companions to fall and tremble because of fear. Because of this experience, Alma was converted to the gospel and spent his life teaching it thereafter.

In 2002, critic Grant H. Palmer asserted that this conversion narrative and much of the rest of Alma’s story "seems to draw" on Paul’s story of conversion and ministry in the New Testament as a narrative structure.[44]

In particular, critics assert that the following parallels exist:

  1. Both men were wicked before their dramatic conversion (Mosiah 27꞉8; 1 Tim. 1꞉12-13).
  2. Both traveled about persecuting and seeking to destroy the church of God (14#p6, 14 Alma 36꞉6, 14; 1 Cor. 15꞉9; Acts 22꞉4)
  3. Both were persecuting the church when they saw a heavenly vision (Mosiah 27꞉10-11; Acts 26꞉11-13).
  4. Their companions fell to the earth and were unable to understand the voice that spoke (Mosiah 27꞉12; Acts 22꞉9; 26꞉14).
  5. Both were asked in vision why they persecuted the Lord (Mosiah 27꞉13; Acts 9꞉4; 22꞉7).
  6. Both were struck dumb/blind, became helpless, and were assisted by their companions. They went without food before converting (Mosiah 27꞉19, 23-24; Acts 9꞉8).
  7. Both preached the gospel and both performed the same miracle (Mosiah 27꞉32; Alma 15꞉11; Acts 9꞉20; 14꞉10).
  8. While preaching, they supported themselves by their own labors (Alma 30꞉32; 1 Cor 4꞉12)
  9. They were put in prison. After they prayed, an earthquake resulted in their bands being loosed (26-28#p22, 26-28 Alma 14꞉22, 26-28; 25-26#p23, 25-26 Acts 16꞉23, 25-26).
  10. Both used the same phrases in their preaching.[45]

This article will seek to examine this criticism and address it in a way that makes sense given orthodox Latter-day Saint theological commitments.

A translator can see parallels too

A well-informed translator would also see the parallels, and so the translation could emphasize the Pauline parallels. If we insist that Joseph was not well-informed enough to see the parallels, he can hardly have been well-informed enough to create the parallels either.

Are roughly parallel stories surprising?

Are we really to believe that there can't be two narratives of men persecuting a church organization, being visited by a heavenly messenger exhorting them to repent, having them converted to preaching repentance, supporting themselves by their own labor while they preach, and being freed from bands and prison without one narrative being literately dependent on the other?

Scholars John Welch and John F. Hall created a chart noting similarities and differences between Alma's and Paul's conversion.[46] They explain:

The conversions of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus and of Alma the Younger in the land of Zarahemla are similar in certain fundamental respects, as one would expect since the source of their spiritual reversals was one and the same. Interestingly, in each case we have three accounts of their conversions: Paul’s conversion is reported in Acts 9, 22, and 26. Alma’s conversion is given in Mosiah 7, Alma 6, and 38. No two of these accounts are exactly the same. The columns on the far right and left sides of chart 15-17 show the verses of these six accounts in which each element either appears or is absent. Down the middle are found the elements shared by both Paul and Alma, and off center are words or experiences unique to either Paul or Alma. In sum, the personalized differences significantly offset and highlight the individual experiences in the two conversions.

The chart they created can be seen here.

Reviewing Each Alleged Parallel

The parallels are examined below. Each narrative has important similarities and dissimilarities that need to be considered in isolation in order to understand how combining them too hastily can lead to misunderstanding.

1. Both men were wicked before their dramatic conversion (Mosiah 27꞉8; 1 Tim. 1꞉12-13)

A fairly innocuous parallel when taken by itself and one that we could establish with many other books. This parallel can only be seen as convincing when taken with other parallels. This parallel and the next are probably better combined with parallels three and four as one parallel. Both are so naturally tied into 3/4 that they function better as one parallel. The critics may be trying to list a greater number of parallels because it makes the criticism look more persuasive than it actually is. (This is another example of the Gish Gallop.)

2. Both traveled about persecuting and seeking to destroy the church of God (Alma 36꞉6, 14; 1 Cor. 15꞉9; Acts 22꞉4)

  1. The account of Alma stresses that they were corrupting people and getting them to not keep the commandments (Mosiah 27꞉8-10). Paul's emphasizes, by contrast, that he was arresting and persecuting the Saints. Paul imprisoned followers of Christ (Acts 9꞉1-2) whereas Alma had no such power.
  2. In Alma's case, his actions were illegal. In Paul's, they were legal and sanctioned by the Jewish authorities.
  3. Paul is a part of the majority religion persecuting the minority religion, while Alma is the opposite.

The parallels are superficial, and ignore the differences.

3. Both were persecuting the church when they saw a heavenly vision (Mosiah 27꞉10-11; Acts 26꞉11-13); 4. Their companions fell to the earth and were unable to understand the voice that spoke (Mosiah 27꞉12; Acts 22꞉9; 26꞉14)

Paul is on the road to Damascus when he has his vision. The Book of Mormon doesn't give us any details as to the location of Alma and his companions.

We know that Alma was with four other people at the time of the heavenly appearance. We are not told how many companions Saul had with him while on the road to Damascus, though it was clearly more than one since he speaks of them in the plural (Acts 22꞉9).

"The next slight difference comes in the angel's appearance to them. To Alma the angel comes in a cloud and to Saul with a bright light from heaven (Acts 9꞉3)."[47]

"The next difference is the description of the voice. No description accompanies the voice in Paul's account, but in Alma's it is 'a voice of thunder' that shakes the earth. Both Saul and Alma fall to the ground—Saul/Paul because he appears to recognize majesty, and with Alma, as a result of the earth's shaking."[47]:4:450

In both accounts, all fall to the ground and all hear the voice of the angel. "The difference is that, in the Book of Mormon account, all fall and all see the messenger (v. 18)…In the Old World example, the companions heard a voice, but the record does not allow us to infer either that they understood it or assumed it to be divine."[47]:4:451

Once more we see differences that the "parallels" approach gloss over.

In Alma's case, it is an angel—not a divine being. In Paul's case, it is Jesus Christ.

5. Both were asked in vision why they persecuted the Lord (Mosiah 27꞉13; Acts 9꞉4; 22꞉7)

"The similarity to Paul's experience is that 'persecution' is part of the divine message in both cases. In Saul's case, however, it is Christ who is persecuted and in Alma's it is the church. The fact of persecution exists in both cases; but in the New World, Alma's persecution precedes Jesus's coming in the flesh. Thus, in one sense, there was no person with which the church might be directly identified and against whom one might persecute as in the New Testament example. Alma's version of apostasy was almost certainly like that of Noah and his priests in which he accepted much of the competing religion but also held some beliefs of the Mosaic law. In this case, Alma and the sons of Mosiah could not have accepted a declaration like that given to Saul because they would not have believed that they were persecuting Yahweh himself, only those who believed in the future Atoning Messiah. Nevertheless, the messenger declares that the church was equated with Yahweh. Alma and the sons of Mosiah were not persecuting people who believed in a nonexistent being, but they were directly persecuting their own God."[47]:4:451–52

6. Both were struck dumb/blind, became helpless, and were assisted by their companions. They went without food before converting (Mosiah 27꞉19, 27꞉23-24; Acts 9꞉9)

  1. Being made dumb is entirely different from being made blind.
  2. Brant Gardner wrote that "Contary to Saul ... Alma is completely debilitated. His companions are functional, able to carry him to assistance. Saul was only blind, but Alma was dumb and so weak that he was 'carried helpless.'"[47]:4:454
  3. Paul was incapacitated for three days and Alma for "two days and two nights"[47]:4:457
  4. Paul went without food before converting. That is specified clearly in the account of his conversion. In Alma's conversion, it is the priests who intentionally fast before Alma receives his strength again.

Again, the parallels are superficial with many details that do not match.

7. Both preached the gospel and both performed the same miracle (Mosiah 27꞉32; Alma 15꞉11; Acts 9꞉20; 14:10)

Both indeed preached the Gospel. Alma ascended to political power after his conversion and then relinquished it before entering ministry whereas Paul had political power in the Jewish world, relinquished it, and did not ascend to it again after conversion and before entering ministry.

Paul and Alma did not perform the same miracle. In Alma's passages, he implores the Lord to heal Zeezrom from a serious fever. Zeezrom asks to be healed, and walks to show that he is better, not because he had been physically lame.

By contrast, in Paul's passages, he merely commands the man lame from birth to walk without being asked

Once more, a superficial list of parallels ignores many differences.

8. While preaching, they supported themselves by their own labors (Alma 30꞉32; 1 Cor 4꞉12)

This is true, though hardly a significant point. Those who sincerely preach would not need to be paid to do so, and preaching an unpopular faith is not likely to be financially rewarding anyway. It is hard to see how Alma and Paul's stories—if true—could have been different on this point.

(We could equally argue that they both preached to large groups in the open air—but that is a meaningless parallel since what they are doing virtually requires that they do so.)

9. They were put in prison. After they prayed, an earthquake resulted in their bands being loosed (Alma 14꞉22,26-28; Acts 16꞉23,25-26 )

Paul and Silas were placed in prison after being stripped and whipped. Alma and Amulek were also confined to prison after being stripped of clothes but were smitten, spit upon, and had people gnash their teeth at them. Paul was imprisoned three times throughout his ministry and Alma once.

Palmer is entirely wrong that an earthquake resulted in Alma's bands being loosed. Alma's bands are loosed by God and then the prison walls shake and tumble. With Paul, it's the foundations of the prison that shake first, doors open, and then the bands are loosed. The walls of the prison in Paul's narrative do not tumble down.

This is a good example of how parallels can blind us to differences—our minds see things that are similar, and gloss over the differences. The critics' emphasis on parallels while ignoring unparallels makes them even more vulnerable to this cognitive error.

10. Same Phrases in Teaching

Palmer suggests that both authors used the same phrases in teaching. Yet, the Book of Mormon is replete with phrasing similar to the New Testament—which is unsurprising since similar ideas are being taught in similar language to people familiar with the KJV New Testament.

The use of such language is not unique to Alma and his conversion narratives and thus it can't be used as a peculiarity to establish Joseph Smith's dependence on Paul's conversion narratives for Alma.

To learn more:The New Testament and the Book of Mormon

Paul and Alma—Conclusion

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Alma’s Prophetic Commissioning Type Scene"

Alan Goff,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (April 29, 2022)
The story often referred to as Alma’s conversion narrative is too often interpreted as a simplistic plagiarism of Paul’s conversion-to-Christianity story in the book of Acts. Both the New and Old Testaments appropriate an ancient narrative genre called the prophetic commissioning story. Paul’s and Alma’s commissioning narratives hearken back to this literary genre, and to refer to either as pilfered is to misunderstand not just these individual narratives but the larger approach Hebraic writers used in composing biblical and Book of Mormon narrative. To the modern mind the similarity in stories triggers explanations involving plagiarism and theft from earlier stories and denies the historicity of the narratives; ancient writers — especially of Hebraic narrative — had a quite different view of such concerns. To deny the historical nature of the stories because they appeal to particular narrative conventions is to impose a mistaken modern conceptual framework on the texts involved. A better and more complex grasp of Hebraic narrative is a necessary first step to understanding these two (and many more) Book of Mormon and biblical stories.

Click here to view the complete article

Edward A. Freeman pointed out how cautious we must be in concluding that similarities mean plagiarism or any kind of litereary dependence. He wrote of the kings of England:

I have often thought how easily two important reigns in our own history might be dealt with in the way that I have spoken of, how easily the later reign might be judged to be a mere repetition of the former, if we knew no more of them than we know of some other parts of history. Let us suppose that the reigns of Henry the First and Henry the Second were known to us only in the same meagre way that we know the reigns of some of the ancient potentates of the East. In short and dry annals they might easily be told so as to look like the same story. Each king bears the same name; each reigns the same number of years; each comes to the crown in a way other than succession from father to son; each restores order after a time of confusion; each improves his political position by his marriage; each is hailed as a restorer of the old native kingship; each loses his eldest son; each gives his daughter Matilda to a Henry in Germany; each has a controversy with his archbishop; each wages war with France; each dies in his continental dominions; each, if our supposed meagre annals can be supposed to tell us of such points, shows himself a great lawgiver and administrator, and each, to some extent, displays the same personal qualities, good and bad. Now when we come really to study [Page 35]the two reigns, we see that the details of all these supposed points of likeness are utterly different; but I am supposing very meagre annals, such as very often are all that we can get, and, in such annals, the two tales would very likely be so told that a master of higher criticism might cast aside Henry the Second and his acts as a mere double of his grandfather and his acts. We know how very far wrong such a judgment would be; and this should make us be cautious in applying a rule which, though often very useful, is always dangerous in cases where we may get utterly wrong without knowing it.[48]

Further details on this topic are available in a paper by Alan Goff—who once more reminds us that Paul and Alma are simply examples of a much broader literary pattern: a type-scene.[49]


Old Testament

How can 1 Nephi 22:15 in the Book of Mormon quote Malachi 4:1 hundreds of years before Malachi was written:

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #218: Why Did Jesus Give The Nephites Malachi's Prophecies: (Video)

The translation language may resemble Malachi, but the work is not attributed to Malachi

Only if we presume that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this convincing. If we assume that it is a translation, then the use of bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language.

The Book of Mormon claims to be a "translation." Joseph could choose to render similar (or identical) material using KJV language if that adequately represented the text's intent.

Joseph used entire chapters (e.g., 3 Nephi 12-14 based on biblical texts that he did not claim were quotations from original texts (even Malachi is treated this way by Jesus in 3 Nephi 24-25). This was simply how Joseph translated.

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


New Testament

Did Joseph Smith riff off of Hebrews 7 to produce the material discussing Melchizedek in Alma 2 and 13:

Critic David P. Wright argues that

Alma chapters 12-13, traditionally dated to about 82 B.C.E., depends in part on the New Testament epistle to the Hebrews, dated by critical scholars to the last third of the first century C.E. The dependence of Alma 2꞉13 on Hebrews thus constitutes an anachronism and indicates that the chapters are a composition of Joseph Smith.[50]

Replied John Tvedtnes:

Wright contends that Alma 13꞉17-19 is a reworking of Hebrews 7꞉1-4, noting six elements shared by the two texts and appearing in the same order in both. [Ref] To his list of six, Wright adds a seventh that is pure guesswork, saying that the words 'there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards' (Alma 13꞉19) derive from the notion of no beginning of days or end of life in Hebrews 7꞉3. This is much too far-fetched.[51]

This argument is long, detailed, and hard to summarize easily. We include some highlights, with links to more detailed treatments.

John A. Tvedtnes’ review of Wright’s chapter

John Tvedtnes was one of the first to respond to Wright’s contentions in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon back in 1994. Tvedtnes argues that the parallels do not come from Joseph Smith reading Hebrews 7 but instead that both Hebrews 7 and Alma 3 share in thought from an earlier source discussing Melchizedek. Readers can find a link to his paper at the citation below.[52]

John W. Welch 1990 Book Chapter on the Melchizedek Material in Alma 3

Three years before Wright published on this topic, John W. Welch wrote a paper on the Melchizedek material in Alma 2꞉13. While not being a direct reponse to Wright, Welch provides insightful comparisons between Alma 3, Hebrews 7, Genesis 2, and extrabiblical lore about Melchizedek to elucidate how Alma interprets Genesis and frames concepts of priesthood and thus how it differs from Hebrews 7. Readers are strongly encouraged to read Welch’s paper.[53]

Book of Mormon Central KnoWhy on Alma and Melchizedek

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #120: Why Did Alma Talk about Melchizedek: (Video)

Book of Mormon Central has written an accessible distillation and analysis of the Melchizedek material in Alma 3 that readers are encouraged to visit.

Brant A. Gardner Commentary in Second Witness

Gardner has written a commentary on Alma 2 and 13 with Wright’s argument and Tvedtnes' response in mind and offers a subtle response to both. In that commentary, "[he takes] the position that the construction of Alma’s text follows a different logic and theme than that of Hebrews. [He develops] this argument in the commentary on the individual verses [of Alma 3]."[54]

Does Helaman 12:25-26 quote John 5:29?

We must remember that the speaker in this case is Mormon, who was writing more than three centuries after Jesus Christ, and who had access to a large variety of Nephite records

Some claim that Helaman 12꞉25-26 quotes John 5꞉29 [55]:

And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord. [26] Yea, who shall be consigned to a state of endless misery, fulfilling the words which say: They that have done good shall have everlasting life; and they that have done evil shall have everlasting damnation. And thus it is. Amen. (Helaman 12꞉25-26)

It is claimed that the "reading" referred to is from John:

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.(John 5:29:{{{4}}})

The problem is that Helaman 12꞉26 doesn't quote John, but at best paraphrases. The issue is over the word "read" that is used to force the connection. We must remember that the speaker in this case is Mormon, who was writing more than three centuries after Jesus Christ, and who had access to a large variety of Nephite records.

For example, the following Book of Mormon verses are potential sources for these ideas:

3 Nephi 26꞉5

If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation....

Mormon had access to this text, and it approximates that used in Helaman quite closely. (Remember that many who criticize the Book of Mormon on this point claim that Helman is speaking pre-Jesus Christ, rather than the editor Mormon, who is post-Jesus and thus post-3 Nephi.)

Other options include those listed below.

1 Nephi 14꞉7

For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

2 Nephi 10꞉23

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

Alma 22꞉6

"And also, what is this that Ammon said—If ye will repent ye shall be saved, and if ye will not repent, ye shall be cast off at the last day:"

While Mormon in Helaman doesn't use the "resurrection of life" and "resurrection of damnation" that is found in John, it does use the "shall be cast off" and "the last day". Now it isn't exact either, and its quite likely that it isn't a direct quote of this passage.

2 Nephi 2꞉26

Another source of this teaching in the Book of Mormon comes in 2 Nephi 2, in particular in verse 26:

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given." (2 Nephi 2꞉26)

Mormon also uses this passage when he writes in Words of Mormon 1꞉11:

"And they were handed down from king Benjamin, from generation to generation until they have fallen into my hands. And I, Mormon, pray to God that they may be preserved from this time henceforth. And I know that they will be preserved; for there are great things written upon them, out of which my people and their brethren shall be judged at the great and last day, according to the word of God which is written."

Other teaching from Christ's era:

Given that Mormon is writing well after Jesus' visit to the Nephites, it is also possible that he is citing another Christian text from that period—it would be logical for Jesus to teach something similar to John 5꞉29 among the Nephites, though as we have seen there were ample other pre-crucifixion texts available to the Nephites as well.

Summary

Since we have this idea present in Alma 22꞉6 (the missionary Aaron quoting Alma the Younger), it seems likely that this was an idea that was taught commonly among the Nephites. This is confirmed by the other passages cited. We can see how the passage in Helaman reflects a Nephite theology and need not be a New Testament theology introduced anachronistically.

Ultimately, the idea is not a particularly complex one, and could easily have had multiple sources or approximations. Mormon need not be even citing a particular text, but merely indicating that one can "read" this idea in a variety of Nephite texts, as demonstrated above.

Thus, the claim of plagiarism seems forced, since there are Nephite texts which more closely approximate the citation than does the gospel of John, and a precise citation is not present in any case.

See also:Bible passages in the Book of Mormon
Summary: What does the inclusion of KJV text in the Book of Mormon tell us?		Alleged KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon
Why do portions of Book of Mormon and KJV match so closely?
Summary: Are the King James passages in the Book of Mormon evidence of plagiarism?		KJV italicized text in the Book of Mormon
Summary: Many changes in the Book of Mormon occur in the KJV italicized text. What is that text for? Did Joseph focus on it during the translation?
Isaiah and the Book of MormonNew Testament text
Quoting MalachiGreek words: alpha and omega?

Learn more about biblical allusions or citation in the Book of Mormon
FAIR links
  • Ben McGuire, "Nephi and Goliath: A Reappraisal of the Use of the Old Testament in First Nephi," Proceedings of the 2001 FAIR Conference (August 2001). link
  • Sara Riley, "“Even as Moses’ Did”: The Use of the Exodus Narrative in Mosiah 11-18," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
Online
  • Sidney B. Sperry, "Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and Other New Testament Books," farms.byu.edu off-site.
  • Learn More About Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon off-site.
  • Royal Skousen, "The History of the Book of Mormon Text: Parts 5 and 6 of Volume 3 of the Critical Text" off-site.
  • Standford Carmack, "Bad Grammar in the Book of Mormon Found in Early English Bibles" off-site.
  • Stan Spencer, "Missing Words: King James Bible Italics, the Translation of the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith as an Unlearned Reader" off-site.
Video

Navigators

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Notes

  1. ↑ Larry C. Porter, "The Odyssey of William Earl McLellin: Man of Diversity, 1806–86," in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch (Urbana: Brigham Young University Studies and University of Illinois Press, 1994), 314. ISBN 0842523162.
  2. ↑ William E. McLellin in Saints' Herald 17 (15 September 1870): 554; cited in Porter, "Man of Diversity," 320.
  3. ↑ McLellin, Saints Herald (15 September 1870): 554.
  4. ↑ Richard P. Howard, "Mormonism's Stormy Petrel," in Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (editors), The William E. McLellin Papers 1854–1880 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2007), 19. ISBN 1560851449. Also available in Richard P. Howard, "William E. McLellin: 'Mormonism's Stormy Petrel'," in Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History, edited by Roger D. Launius and Linda Thatcher, (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 76–97. ISBN 0252067312.
  5. ↑ McLellin, Saints Herald (15 September 1870): 554.
  6. ↑ McLellin to John L. Traughber, 14 December 1878, in Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (editors), The William E. McLellin Papers 1854–1880 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2007), 512. ISBN 1560851449.
  7. ↑ McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A Mormon, ca. 1880 (italics in original); cited in Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey (editors), The William E. McLellin Papers 1854–1880 (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2007), 383. ISBN 1560851449.
  8. ↑ McLellin, "Reasons Why I am Not A Mormon, ca. 1880 (italics in original); cited in McLellin Papers, 390.
  9. ↑ John Gee, "Four Suggestions on the Origin of the Name Nephi,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 1–5.
  10. ↑ Ibid.
  11. ↑ Nibley is responding to Wesley P. Walters, "Mormonism," Christianity Today 5/6 (19 December 1960): 8–10.
  12. ↑ Nibley is quoting Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (Michigan: Baker, 1955; reprinted 1978), 1:397.
  13. ↑ Nibley is quoting Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 136.
  14. ↑ Church News, 29 July 1961: 10, 15. Reprinted in Hugh W. Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Vol. 8 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1989), 214–18. ISBN 0875791794. Wiki editors have added subheadings to this section to aid in readability and navigation. [Nibley's first edition of Since Cumorah cites such sources as R. Reitzenstein, in Nachrichter v. d. kgl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen (1916): 362, 416, and 1917 Heft 1, pp. 130-151, and Historische Zeitschrift 116 (DATE:), pp. 189-202. A von Harnack, in Journal of Biblical Literature 50 (1931), pp. 266ff; cf. Alf. Resch, "Der Paulinismus u. die Logia Jesu," in Texte u. Untersuchungen. N. F. 13 (1904).]
  15. ↑ Interpreter Foundation, "The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon," <https://interpreterfoundation.org/the-history-of-the-text-of-the-book-of-mormon/> (25 January 2020).
  16. ↑ Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: the Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage, 1995), 62–63.
  17. ↑ For a detailed and thorough review of the literature on this topic, see: Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013). [1–60] link and Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part Two," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/2 (24 May 2013). [61–104] link
  18. ↑ Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013): 8-9. [1–60] link; citing Everett Ferguson, “Introduction: Perspectives on Parallels,” in Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1-2
  19. ↑ Benjamin L. McGuire, "Finding Parallels: Some Cautions and Criticisms, Part One," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 5/1 (17 May 2013). [1–60] link
  20. ↑ W. H.Bennett and Walter F. Adeney, A Biblical Introduction (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1899), 39; cited in {{Interpreter:McGuire:Finding Parallels Some Cautions And Criticisms Part One:2013:Short|pages=36}
  21. ↑ For a concrete example of this in the Book of Mormon, see Book of Mormon Central, "Why Are there Multiple Accounts of Joseph Smith's and Alma's Visions: ([https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/36?lang=eng&id=p6-7#p6-7 Alma 36꞉6-7)]," KnoWhy 264 (January 20, 2017).
  22. ↑ For an introduction to type-scenes, see Michael Austin, "How the Book of Mormon Reads the Bible: A Theory of Types," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 26, (2017): 51-53. For one perspective on how type-scenes are a subtle witness for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, see Alan Goff, "Uncritical Theory and Thin Description: The Resistance to History," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7, no. 1 (1995): 187-190.
  23. ↑ For a few examples other examples of type-scenes in the Book of Mormon, see Richard Dilworth Rust, "Recurrence in Book of Mormon Narratives," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1 (1994): 42-43. [39–52] link.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011), 62.
  25. ↑ Ibid., 63.
  26. ↑ Ibid.
  27. ↑ For one example of this, see Ibid., 70.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Alan Goff, "Reduction and Enlargement: Harold Bloom's Mormons (Review of The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation by Harold Bloom)," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 5/1 (1993): 105. [96–108] link
  29. ↑ Ibid.
  30. ↑ Ibid.
  31. ↑ For more context on this story, see Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:275-276.
  32. ↑ Bennett, 39; cited in Benjamin L. McGuire, Interpreter (17 May 2013): 36-37.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 Nicholas J. Frederick, "Whence the Daughter of Jared:" in Illuminating the Jaredite Records, ed. Daniel L. Belnap (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2020)
  34. ↑ At the Pacific Coast meeting in 1940, ARAHA (1940): 90.
  35. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, "Sparsiones," Classical Journal 40 (1945): 541–43.
  36. ↑ Ibid., for a preliminary treatment.
  37. ↑ E.A. Wallis Budge, Chronology of Bar Hebraeus, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 1:182, "The sister of the Khalifah had a certain scribe, and Egyptian, in Syiria, and he sent and complained to her about Abu Tahir [the ruler of Syria]. . . . And because her brother always paid very great attention to her, she went and wept before him. And she received [from him] the command, and she sent [it] and killed Abu Tahir, and his head was carried to Egypt."
  38. ↑ Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1988), 213.
  39. ↑ Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).
  40. ↑ Stuart Lasine, "Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot's Hospitality in an Inverted World," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (June 1984): 40.
  41. ↑ Lasine, "Gust and Host," 55.
  42. ↑ Alan Goff, "The Stealing of the Daughters of the Lamanites," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, ed. John L. Sorenson (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992), 67–74.
  43. ↑ Alan Goff, "The Plagiary of the Daughters of the Lamanites," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 61/1 (2024). [57–96] link
  44. ↑ Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002) 50-51. ( Index of claims ) . Similar arguments are presented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 62-63. ( Index of claims ) and G. T. Harrison, That Mormon Book: Mormonism’s Keystone Exposed or The Hoax Book (n.p.: n.p., 1981).
  45. ↑ Palmer cites 16 examples in which Alma and Paul used similar phrases in their teaching.
  46. ↑ John W. Welch, John F. Hall and J. Gregory Welch, Charting the New Testament: Visual Aids for Personal Study and Teaching (Provo, Utah: FARMS and Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Texts, 2002), chart(s) 15-17. ISBN 0934893640. off-site(Permission in digital version granted for non-profit reproduction and distribution if copyright notice intact and material unaltered.)
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007).
  48. ↑ Edward A. Freeman, The Methods of Historical Study (London: Macmillan, 1886), 138–39; cited in Benjamin L. McGuire, Interpreter (17 May 2013): 34-35.
  49. ↑ Alan Goff, "Alma's Prophetic Commissioning Type Scene," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 51/5 (29 April 2022). [115–164] link
  50. ↑ David P. Wright, "’In Plain Terms That We Might Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 2꞉13" in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 165–229 (166).
  51. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes, "Review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology by Brent Lee Metcalfe," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994). [8–50] link
  52. ↑ John A. Tvedtnes (1994): 19-23.
  53. ↑ John W. Welch, "The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13-19," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book/Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 2:248.
  54. ↑ Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 Vols. (Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2007), 4:213n2.
  55. ↑ Making Life Count Ministries, Inc., "Proof the Book of Mormon Isn't True," (PDF on-line, no date), 1.

Response to claim: 116 - The story of Lazarus being raised from the dead is a source for the story of Ammon

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The story of Lazarus being raised from the dead is a source for the story of Ammon.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence.


Response to claim: 118 - The story of Alma was taken from the story of Paul

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The story of Alma was taken from the story of Paul.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence.


Response to claim: 119-121 - The Book of Mormon is proven false because it contains material found in the New Testament

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon is proven false because it contains material found in the New Testament.

Author's sources:
  1. 1 John 1꞉3 compared to 1 Nephi 1꞉18

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

One would expect many teachings in the Gospel to be the same - they would not be unique to the New Testament.


Question: Why do some New Testament phrases appear in the Book of Mormon?

Critics who suggest that Joseph Smith copied phrases from the New Testament do nothing to explore how common such phrases were in the preaching, writing, and speaking of Joseph's day

Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner present many examples of supposed "borrowing" of New Testament phrases by the Book of Mormon. When lined up in a list (without the text to compare) these can seem impressive. When the small amount of text which some have in common is seen, however, they become less convincing.

Furthermore, the Tanners do nothing to explore how common such phrases were in the preaching, writing, and speaking of Joseph's day. As discussed on the main page, many modern speakers use Shakespearean terms every day without realizing it. Some biblical phrases were simply part of the vocabulary of Joseph's day.

Google Books allows us to search many publications from the 19th century. It provides an estimate of how common these phrases were in religious and other discussion. This analysis is not to claim that Joseph read these books, but simply that these phrases were in common, frequent use for religious discussions. Since he had attended many sermons and meetings, it seems unlikely that he would not have been exposed to them over and over again. Furthermore, they were likely part of the "common language" of his era--some approach the status of cliches that one would use almost without thinking, or even knowing its source.

Analysis of specific examples

List New Testament Book of Mormon Comments

1

1 John 1:3

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 Nephi 1:18

18 Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.

  • This is a fairly trivial phrase; there are multiple examples in 19th century and modern works of the phrase "I have seen and heard":
  • Candice Player and Susan Eaton, "Things I Have Seen and Heard: How Educators, Youth Workers and Elected Leaders Can Help Reduce the Damage of Childhood Exposure to Violence in Communities," off-site
  • Minnie Myrtle, "Strange Things I Have Seen and Heard" and other pieces from The Myrtle Wreath or Stray Leaves Recalled (N.Y.: Charles Scribner, 1854). off-site
  • "...now that I have seen and heard, I am in a hurry to get back, and tell my relatives the straight of it." - Isaac V. D. Heard, Henry Benjamin Whipple, History of the Sious War and Massacres of 1862 and 1863 (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, Franklin Square, 1865), 165. off-site
  • "Because of that which I have seen and heard since my return..." - General Douglas MacArthur; cited in Edward T. Imparato, General MacArthur Speeches and Reports 1908–1964 (Turner Publishing Company, 2000), 205. off-site
  • "...things that can be both seen and heard....it will be open to us to say that the 'common thing' can be both seen and heard...." David Bostock, Plato's Theaetetus (Oxford University Press, 1991), 112.

2

John 11:50

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

1 Nephi 4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

  • Google Books shows:
    • even though "one man should perish" is not the biblical phrase, 6 works used it before June 1830. off-site This includes a translation of Dante's Inferno.
    • nearly 250 works use "perish" in close association with "one man should." off-site

3

 [ATTENTION!] – WHAT REFERENCE?

1 Nephi 11:22

And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

 [needs work]

4

Rev 7:14

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

1 Nephi 12:11

And the angel said unto me: Look! And I looked, and beheld three generations pass away in righteousness; and their garments were white even like unto the Lamb of God. And the angel said unto me: These are made white in the blood of the Lamb, because of their faith in him.

  • This was an exceedingly well-known phrase in the religious discussion of Joseph's day.
  • Google Books shows:
    • over 600 books or magazines published before June 1830 are available on Google Books. off-site

5

1 Cor 3:15

If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

1 Nephi 22:17

Wherefore, he will preserve the righteous by his power, even if it so be that the fulness of his wrath must come, and the righteous be preserved, even unto the destruction of their enemies by fire. Wherefore, the righteous need not fear; for thus saith the prophet, they shall be saved, even if it so be as by fire.

  • Google books shows:
    • 55 works using the phrase "saved as by fire" before June 1830 off-site
    • over 550 works using the phrase "as by fire" and "saved" before June 1830 off-site
    • 10 Methodist works alone used the phrase "as by fire" before June 1830–and we know that Joseph was initially attracted to Methodism. This phrase was likely a frequent part of Methodist preaching at the time. off-site

6

Romans 7:24

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

2 Nephi 4:17

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

  • Google Books shows:
    • over 650 uses of "wretched man that I am" before June 1830 off-site
    • 11 of these uses are in Methodist publications off-site

7

Rev 20:13

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

2 Nephi 9:12

And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

  • Google Books shows:
    • nearly 400 uses of "delivered up the dead" before June 1830 off-site

8

Rev 22:11

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

2 Nephi 9:16

And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

  • Google Books shows:
    • 250 works used "righteous still" and "filthy still" before June 1830 off-site

9

Heb 12:2

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2 Nephi 9:18

But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever.

  • Google Books shows:
    • over 600 uses of "despised the shame" before June 1830 off-site
    • 6 uses in Methodist publications off-site

10

Romans 8:6

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

2 Nephi 9:39

O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

  • Google Books shows:
    • over 600 uses of "carnally minded is death" before June 1830 off-site
    • 4 uses are in Methodist publications off-site

11

Gal 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

2 Nephi 10:16

Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

  • Note that instead of "nor," "and" is used; thus only a few contrasting words are in common.
  • Despite differing in this way from the Bible text, Google Books still finds
    • over 50 examples before June 1830 which mention both phrases "bond and free" and "male and female" off-site
    • there are even 7 hits for all of "bond and free," "male and female," and "Jew." off-site

12

Acts 4:12

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

2 Nephi 25:2

And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err. And as the Lord God liveth that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, and gave unto Moses power that he should heal the nations after they had been bitten by the poisonous serpents, if they would cast their eyes unto the serpent which he did raise up before them, and also gave him power that he should smite the rock and the water should come forth; yea, behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.

  • Google Books shows:
    • even a search of the Book of Mormon's phrase "none other name given under heaven" (which is not found in the Bible) finds over 60 works that use this version of it before June 1830. off-site

13

John 1:29

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

1 Nephi 10:10

And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world.

2 Nephi 31:4

Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

  • This is a classic scriptural text, probably known to most Christians.
  • Google Books shows:
    • 2 uses of the exact Book of Mormon phrase in books published before 1830. off-site Clearly, this is a typical way of talking about such things, even when the text is not quoted exactly.
    • nearly 200 use the phrases "lamb of God" and "take away the sins of the world." off-site

14

1 Cor 15:58

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Mosiah 5:15

Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

  • Google Books shows:
    • 27 uses of "steadfast and immovable always abounding" in pre-June 1830 works. off-site

15

1 Cor 15:55

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Mosiah 16:7

And if Christ had not risen from the dead, or have broken the bands of death that the grave should have no victory, and that death should have no sting, there could have been no resurrection.

  • That death has a sting is a commonplace; it is and was a frequent expression which hardly requires direct borrowing from the Bible.
  • Google Books shows:
    • over 1000 books using both "death" and "sting" before June 1830 off-site
    • over 20 of these references were in Methodist works off-site

16

John 5:29

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

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—

  • This is a trivial example—one hardly needs to copy from the Bible to compare the ideas of the good being resurrected to life and the evil to damnation. The phraseology is not even that close.

17

Gal 5:1

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Alma 58:40

But behold, they have received many wounds; nevertheless they stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has made them free; and they are strict to remember the Lord their God from day to day; yea, they do observe to keep his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments continually; and their faith is strong in the prophecies concerning that which is to come.

  • This is another exceedingly common expression.
  • Google Books shows:
    • over 150 uses of the biblical phrase "stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith." off-site
    • over 350 uses of the altered phrase (missing "therefore") "stand fast in the liberty wherewith." off-site
    • even the altered Book of Mormon phrase "stand fast in that liberty wherewith" has nearly 50 hits. off-site
    • Together, these make up at least 550 separate uses.

17

John 3:7

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Mosiah 27:25

And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

  • Once again, this is a very common pairing in the writing of the time.
  • Google books shows:
    • over 580 works use the terms "marvel not" and "born again" together. off-site

18

2 Cor 6:17

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Alma 5:57

And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things; and behold, their names shall be blotted out, that the names of the wicked shall not be numbered among the names of the righteous, that the word of God may be fulfilled, which saith: The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people;

  • The critics fail to point out that both 2 Corinthians and Alma are may be alluding to an Isaiah text or similar Old Testament-era idea:
Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD (Isaiah 52:11).
  • Google Books shows:
    • Even though the precise phrases "wicked" and "come ye out from" are not in the biblical verse, they are still used together in 10 pre-June 1830 works off-site

19


Hebrews 12:1

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Alma 7:15

Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

  • Google Books shows:
    • nearly 450 entries before June 1830 use the phrases "lay aside every" and "easily doth beset" off-site
    • almost all (432) of the above also use the phrase "sin" in conjunction with the other two phrases off-site
    • the non-biblical construction "lay aside every sin" is still used 9 times. off-site

20


Luke 7:9

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Alma 19:10

And Ammon said unto her: Blessed art thou because of thy exceeding faith; I say unto thee, woman, there has not been such great faith among all the people of the Nephites.

  • This example is trivial—it consists only in saying that the speaker has not found such "great faith" among a certain group. It is difficult to know how else one would translate this without intentionally trying to avoid the biblical usage or something close to it.

21


John 3:14

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Helaman 8:14

Yea, did he not bear record that the Son of God should come? And as he lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, even so shall he be lifted up who should come.

  • This phrasing is, once again, incredibly common.
  • Google Books shows:
    • over 480 items use "lifted up" and "serpent in the wilderness even so" before June 1830. off-site


Response to claim: 122 - In the Book of Mormon, Jesus quotes a paraphrase of Moses' words found in Acts 3:22-26, rather than Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

In the Book of Mormon, Jesus quotes a paraphrase of Moses' words found in Acts 3:22-26, rather than Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

All these parallels demonstrate is that: 1) the Book of Mormon translation language is closely based in KJV English; and 2) that King James phrases were exceedingly common in the speech and writing of Joseph's day. Neither of these is news, and neither can tell us much but that the Book of Mormon was translated in the nineteenth century.


The New Testament and the Book of Mormon


Jump to details:


Response to claim: 123 - The Greek terms "Alpha" and "Omega" appear in the Book of Mormon, thereby proving that it is not an ancient work

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The Greek terms "Alpha" and "Omega" appear in the Book of Mormon, thereby proving that it is not an ancient work. Bruce R. McConkie says they are used "figuratively."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Only if we presume that the Book of Mormon is a fraud at the outset is this proof of anything. If we assume that it is a translation, then the use of Bible language tells us merely that Joseph used biblical language.


Why is the name of Christ (or other Greek terms such as "alpha" and "omega") mentioned in the Book of Mormon before Christ's birth?

Some have criticized 2 Nephi 25꞉19 for using the expression 'Jesus Christ' prior to the New Testament. The criticism has taken a few forms:

  1. Christ is a title, not a name.
  2. Both Jesus and Christ are terms that come from Greek—which was not known by the Nephites.
  3. A related complaint notes that alpha and omega are likewise Greek terms that the Nephites would not have known.

There are at least three possible answers to these questions.

Option #1: Joseph may have translated a Hebrew Equivalent of this name into English

The Book of Mormon clearly identifies the term 'Christ' (Greek) and 'Messiah' (Hebrew) as synonyms.[1]

'Jesus' is the Greek form of the name Joshua or Yeshua meaning Jehovah is salvation.[2]

Arthur E. Glass, a Jewish-Christian scholar, has observed that Isaiah 62꞉11 and several other Old Testament verses translated as "my salvation" or "thy salvation" should properly be translated as the name Yeshua, which is the shortened form of the name Yehoshua. (from Yeshua in the Tenach – Brochure; see also Gen. 49:18; Ex. 15:2; 1 Sam. 2:1; Ps. 9:14; 91:16; Isa. 12:2, 49:6, Luke 2:29-32; etc.)

According to Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael Brown, “The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshuˈa, which is short for yehōshuˈa (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael. The name yeshuˈa occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile, called both yehōshuˈa (see, e.g., {s||Zechariah|3|3}}) and, more frequently, yeshuˈa (see, e.g., Ezra 3꞉2). So, Yeshua’s name was not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name in the Old Testament. And this is how that name came to be ‘Jesus’ in English.”[3]

The Book of Mormon also repeatedly referred to "Jesus the Christ" (2 Nephi 26꞉12; Mormon 5꞉14; Moroni 7꞉44) or as "the Messiah" (1 Nephi 15꞉13; 2 Nephi 1꞉10; 2 Nephi 2꞉6; 2 Nephi 2꞉26). It is thus obvious that the use of 'Christ' as a title is understood by the Book of Mormon author(s).

The Book of Mormon author(s) could have known the Lord’s name in their own language. In Hebrew "Jesus the Messiah" would have been called Yeshua Hamashiyach, but for English readers this was translated as 'Jesus Christ'.[4] Any name used will be a translation of some sort.

Most researchers consider this the most likely explanation.

Option #2: Mormon could have changed all mentions of the Hebrew equivalent of Christ's name

By the time Mormon wrote his synopsis of Nephite history, he knew quite well how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies that had been made about him before his birth. Mormon could have 'modernized' (in his terms!) differences in terminology that might otherwise have been confusing. This was common a common strategy to improve understanding.

This option is less attractive for the material on the small plates, since Mormon included them intact and did not "rewrite" or otherwise redact them.

Option #3: The Greek name-title 'Christ' (Christos) was actually on the plates

Finally, the name-title Christ may have actually been on the plates. Many do not realize that Greeks had a prominent place in the Holy Land even during the time of Lehi. Hugh Nibley elaborated on this here. It is thus possible that a few Greek terms were already in use, though this seems less likely given the religious importance of a term like "Messiah," and the inherent conservatism of most religious language.

What about the Greek terms 'alpha' and 'omega'?

The same arguments apply for Greek words such as 'alpha' and 'omega' as for a Greek name 'Jesus Christ.' The Encyclopedia of Mormonism explains:

Equivalent to the Old Testament term "the first and the last" (e.g., Isaiah 44꞉6), alpha and omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Just as no letters stand before alpha or after omega, so there are no other gods in this creation other than that represented in Jesus Christ. He encompasses all, from beginning to end; he extends beyond all extremities and categories.[5]

In such cases, either the Hebrew equivalent remained unchanged on the plate text and Joseph simply rendered it into something familiar to his audience, or different terms were used by the post-Christian Mormon.


Response to claim: 124 - The Book of Mormon is proven false because it contains the Greek name Timothy

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon is proven false because it contains the Greek name Timothy.

Author's sources:
  1. 3 Nephi 19꞉4

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

It would not be unusual for Lehi's group to be familiar with Greek names.


Hugh Nibley on Greek Names in the Book of Mormon: "Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world"

Hugh Nibley:

The occurrence of the names Timothy and Lachoneus in the Book of Mormon is strictly in order, however odd it may seem at first glance. Since the fourteenth century B.C. at latest, Syria and Palestine had been in constant contact with the Aegean world; and since the middle of the seventh century, Greek mercenaries and merchants closely bound to Egyptian interest (the best Egyptian mercenaries were Greeks) swarmed throughout the Near East.23 Lehi's people, even apart from their mercantile activities, could not have avoided considerable contact with these people in Egypt and especially in Sidon, which Greek poets even in that day were celebrating as the great world center of trade. It is interesting to note in passing that Timothy is an Ionian name, since the Greeks in Palestine were Ionians (hence the Hebrew name for Greeks: "Sons of Javanim"), and—since "Lachoneus" means "a Laconian"—that the oldest Greek traders were Laconians, who had colonies in Cyprus (Book of Mormon Akish) and of course traded with Palestine.24[6]

Hugh Nibley: "in Lehi's day Palestine was swarming with Greeks"

Hugh Nibley:

[R]emember...that in Lehi's day Palestine was swarming with Greeks, important Greeks. Remember, it was Egyptian territory [prior to being seized by Babylon] at that time and Egyptian culture. The Egyptian army, Necho's army, was almost entirely Greek mercenaries. We have inscriptions from that very time up the Nile at Aswan-inscriptions from the mercenaries of the Egyptian army, and they're all in Greek. So Greek was very common, and especially the name Timotheus.[7]</ref>

Response to claim: 125 - Joseph Smith's mother said that he used to entertain them with stories about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith's mother said that he used to entertain them with stories about the ancient inhabitants of the American continent before he translated the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources:
  1. History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, 1954 ed., p.83

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is typically represented as Joseph being a teller of "tall tales" before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. These stories, however, were Joseph's reports of his interviews with the angel Moroni.


<onlyinclude>

  1. REDIRECTJoseph Smith's trustworthiness

Response to claim: 127 - B.H. Roberts concluded that the book View of the Hebrews could have provided a structural foundation for the Book of Mormon

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

B.H. Roberts concluded that the book View of the Hebrews could have provided a structural foundation for the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources:
  1. B.H. Roberts, A Parallel"—The Basis of the Book of Mormon (see Studies of the Book of Mormon)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Roberts concluded that critics of the Book of Mormon would assert that View of the Hebrews could have provided a structural foundation for the Book of Mormon. Roberts was careful to state that these were not his own conclusion.


Question: What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?

B.H. Roberts was playing "devil's advocate" when he examined View of the Hebrews, and showing what a critic might do

Main article:B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon

The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[8]

Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

Roberts rejected the idea that the Book of Mormon was not divine

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.


Response to claim: 127 - B.H. Roberts listed a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

B.H. Roberts listed a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources:
  1. B.H. Roberts, A Parallel"—The Basis of the Book of Mormon (see Studies of the Book of Mormon)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Roberts listed a number of parallels, which were only valid if a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon was assumed.


Question: What did B.H. Roberts say about View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon?

B.H. Roberts was playing "devil's advocate" when he examined View of the Hebrews, and showing what a critic might do

Main article:B.H. Roberts and Studies of the Book of Mormon

The View of the Hebrews theory was examined in detail by B. H. Roberts in 1921 and 1922. Roberts took the position of examining the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective in order to alert the General Authorities to possible future avenues of attack by critics. The resulting manuscripts were titled Book of Mormon Difficulties and A Parallel. Roberts, who believed in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon, highlighted a number of parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon. Roberts stated,

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[9]

Roberts concluded that, if one assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, that View of the Hebrews could have provided him with a foundation for creating the book. In fact, many of the issues highlighted by Roberts vanish when a limited geography theory is considered. The acceptance of the View of the Hebrews theory is therefore contingent upon the acceptance of a hemispheric geography model for the Book of Mormon. In order to promote View of the Hebrews as a source, critics necessarily reject any limited geography theory proposal for the Book of Mormon.

Roberts rejected the idea that the Book of Mormon was not divine

In 1985, Roberts' manuscripts were published under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. This book is used by critics to support their claim that B. H. Roberts lost his testimony after performing the study. Roberts, however, clearly continued to publicly support the Book of Mormon until his death, and reaffirmed his testimony both publicly and in print.


Response to claim: 128 - The Book of Mormon may have used Josiah Priest's book The Wonders of Nature as a source

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon may have used Josiah Priest's book The Wonders of Nature as a source.

Author's sources:
  1. Authors' opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Assertion is not an argument. The Tanners need evidence.


Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed?

There is so little of The Wonders of Nature that has parallels with the Book of Mormon that it would provide a forger with little help

It is claimed that Joseph Smith plagiarized Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed in order to write portions of The Book of Mormon.

Matthew Roper makes several observations regarding this claim:

  1. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever read Priest's book before he translated the Book of Mormon.
  2. That there are very few ways to describe an isthmus. Roper states, "In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster defines the word neck as 'a long narrow tract of land projecting from the main body, or a narrow tract connecting two larger tracts; as the neck of land between Boston and Roxbury.' "[10]

Narrow neck

The Wonders of Nature(1825) Book of Mormon Other similar phrases
For instance, in many places, such as the isthmus of Darien, a narrow neck of land is interposed betwixt two vast oceans. (p. 598) And they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land. (Ether 10:20) A long narrow tract of land projecting from the main body, or a narrow tract connecting two larger tracts; as the neck of land between Boston and Roxbury. (Webster's Dictionary (1828)

Vapour and darkness

The Wonders of Nature(1825) Book of Mormon Other similar phrases
"Darkness which may be felt.... vapours ... so thick as to prevent the rays of the sun from penetrating an extraordinary thick mist. ... no artificial light could be procured ... vapours would prevent lamps, etc. from burning. ... [T]he darkness lasted for three days." (p. 524) "[They] could feel the vapour of darkness, and there could be no light ... neither candles, neither torches, ... neither the sun ... for so great were the mists of darkness ... [I]t did last for the space of three days." (3 Nephi 8꞉20-23) They saw not one another. So deep was the obscurity, and probably such was its nature, that no artificial light could be procured; as the thick clammy vapors would prevent lamps, &c., from burning, or if they even could be ignited, the light through the palpable obscurity, could diffuse itself to no distance from the burning body. The author of the book of Wisdom, chap. xvii. 2-19, gives a fearful description of this plague. He says, "The Egyptians were shut up in their houses, the prisoners of darkness: and were fettered with the bonds of a long night. They were scattered under a dark veil of forgetfulness, being horribly astonished and troubled with strange apparitions; for neither might the corner that held them keep them from fear; but noises as of waters falling down sounded about them; and sad visions appeared unto them with heavy countenances.

No power of the fire could give them light-only there appeared unto them a fire kindled of itself very dreadful; for being much terrified, they thought the things which they saw to be worse than the sight they saw not. For though no terrible thing did scare them, yet being scared with beasts that passed by, and hissing of serpents, they died for fear: for whether he were husbandman, or shepherd, or a labourer in the field, he was overtaken; for they were all bound with one chain of darkness. Whether it were a whistling wind, or a terrible sound of stones cast down, or a running that could not be seen of tripping beasts, or a roaring voice of most savage wild beasts, or a rebounding echo from the hollow mountains, these things made them to swoon for fear." See Psalms 78:49.

To this description nothing need be added except this circumstance, that the darkness, with its attendant horrors, lasted for three days. ("Commentary on Exodus X: The Ninth Plague - Thick Darkness, Verse 23" Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 1


Question: Did Joseph Smith plagiarize Shakespeare?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #26: Did Lehi Quote Shakespeare? (Video)

The passages which suggest Shakespeare are better explained by other ancient parallels

It is claimed that Joseph Smith plagiarized Shakespeare in order to write portions of The Book of Mormon. However, there is no evidence that Joseph had read Priest's book. Even so, there is so little of it that has parallels with the Book of Mormon that this would provide a forger with little help. The passages which suggest Shakespeare are better explained by other ancient parallels; in any case, these passages provide very little that would assist in writing the Book of Mormon.

Whence no traveler returns

See also: "Plagiarism"—Shakespeare
The Wonders of Nature(1825) Book of Mormon Other similar phrases
I then requested him to leave me, as my time was short, and I had some preparation to make before I went hence to "that bourne from whence no traveller returns." (p. 469) "Awake! and arise from the dust, and hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return; a few more days and I go the way of all the earth. " (2 Nephi 1:14)
  • "That undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns." (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1)
  • He is gone to that bourne from whence no traveller returns. (Dickens, The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, (1838-1839)
  • Let me alone that I may take comfort a little, before I go whence I shall not return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death." (Job 10:20-21.)
  • When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return. (Job 16:22.)

The phrase "from whence no traveller returns" quoted by Josiah Priest is from Shakspeare's Hamlet. Therefore, an alternate criticism is the Joseph Smith plagiarized this line from Hamlet.

B.H. Roberts

B.H. Roberts notes that the critic "fairly revels in the thought that he has Lehi quoting Shakespeare many generations before our great English poet was born; and indulges in the sarcasms which Campbell and more than a score of anti-Mormon writers have indulged in who have mimicked his phraseology." Roberts notes that the Book of Job, contained in the Jewish scriptures that Lehi certainly would have been familiar with, contains two passages "which could easily have supplied both Shakespeare and Lehi with the idea of that country 'from whose bourn no traveler returns.'" In other words, Lehi could have obtained his idea from the same source from which Shakespeare obtained the inspiration for his phrase. Roberts concludes:

It will be observed that the passage from the Book of Mormon follows Job more closely than it does Shakespeare both in thought and diction; and this for the reason, doubtless, that Lehi had been impressed with Job's idea of going to the land whence he would not return, and Joseph Smith, being familiar with Job, and very likely not familiar with Shakespeare, when he came to Lehi's thought, expressed it nearly in Job's phraseology...Lehi lived in Judea in the seventh and sixth century, B.C. He was acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, including the book of Job, and when he departed from Jerusalem for the western world his colony took with them those same scriptures. Through them he became familiar in the Hebrew with Job's--"Let me alone, that I may take comfort a little before I go whence I shall not return." Also Job's--"When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return." When Lehi's own hour of departure hence had come, impressed with this solemn thought of Job's, he gave expression to it in Hebrew. The saying was recorded by his son Nephi in the Egyptian characters employed by him in making his record. Observe that we have traced these ideas of the "land whence I shall not return" into the Nephite records without the aid of the English Bible or Shakespeare.[11]

Hugh Nibley

Wrote Hugh Nibley:

No passage in the Book of Mormon has been more often singled out for attack than Lehi's description of himself as one "whose limbs ye must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return" (2 Nephi 1:14). This passage has inspired scathing descriptions of the Book of Mormon as a mass of stolen quotations "from Shakespeare and other English poets." Lehi does not quote Hamlet directly, to be sure, for he does not talk of "that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveler returns," but simply speaks of "the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveler can return." In mentioning the grave, the eloquent old man cannot resist the inevitable "cold and silent" nor the equally inevitable tag about the traveler—a device that, with all respect to Shakespeare, Lehi's own contemporaries made constant use of. Long ago Friedrich Delitzsch wrote a classic work on ancient Oriental ideas about death and afterlife, and a fitting title of his book was Das Land ohne Heimkehr—"The Land of No Return." In the story of Ishtar's descent to the underworld, the lady goes to the irsit la tari, "the land of no return." She visits "the dark house from which no one ever comes out again" and travels along "the road on which there is no turning back." A recent study of Sumerian and Akkadian names for the world of the dead lists prominently "the hole, the earth, the land of no return, the path of no turning back, the road whose course never turns back, the distant land, etc." A recently discovered fragment speaks of the grave as "the house of Irkallu, where those who have come to it are without return. . . . A place whose dead are cast in the dust, in the direction of darkness . . . [going] to the place where they who came to it are without return."
This is a good deal closer to Lehi's language than Shakespeare is. The same sentiments are found in Egyptian literature, as in a popular song which tells how "the gods that were aforetime rest in their pyramids. . . . None cometh again from thence that he may tell of their state. . . . Lo, none may take his goods with him, and none that hath gone may come again." A literary text reports: "The mockers say, 'The house of the inhabitants of the Land of the West is deep and dark; it has no door and no window. . . . There the sun never rises but they lie forever in the dark.' "
Shakespeare should sue; but Lehi, a lover of poetic imagery and high-flown speech, can hardly be denied the luxury of speaking as he was supposed to speak. The ideas to which he here gives such familiar and conventional expression are actually not his own ideas about life after death—nor Nephi's nor Joseph Smith's, for that matter, but they are the ideas which any eloquent man of Lehi's day, with a sound literary education such as Lehi had, would be expected and required to use. And so the most popular and obvious charge of fraud against the Book of Mormon has backfired.[12]


Response to claim: 128-129 - The Book of Mormon contains changes that altered the original meaning of the text

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon contains changes that altered the original meaning of the text.

Author's sources:
  1. Authors' opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The changes did not alter the original meaning of the text.


Question: Why were textual changes made to the Book of Mormon over the years after it was first published?

The few significant modifications were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith to clarify the meaning of the text, not to change it

The published text of the Book of Mormon has been corrected and edited through its various editions. Many of these changes were made by Joseph Smith himself. Why was this done?

The authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not affected by the modifications that have been made to its text because the vast majority of those modifications are minor corrections in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The few significant modifications were made by the Prophet Joseph Smith to clarify the meaning of the text, not to change it. This was his right as translator of the book.

These changes have not been kept secret. A discussion of them can be found in the individual articles linked below, and in the references listed below, including papers in BYU Studies and the Ensign.

Joseph Smith taught "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."[13] As the end of the preceding quote clarifies, by "most correct" this he meant in principle and teaching. The authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God (1 Nephi 19:6; 2 Nephi 33:4; Mormon 8:17; Mormon 9:31-33; Ether 12:23-26).

There are over 100,000 insignificant changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon

If one counts every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes.[14] The critical issue is not the number of changes that have been made to the text, but the nature of the changes.

Most changes are insignificant modifications to spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and are mainly due to the human failings of editors and publishers. For example, the word meet — meaning "appropriate" — as it appears in 1 Nephi 7:1, was spelled "mete" in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) "Mete" means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1 Nephi 12:18, which in all printed editions reads "a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God," while the manuscript reads "the sword of the justice of the Eternal God." In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword.

The current (2013) edition of the Book of Mormon has this notice printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1:

Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Some Book of Mormon changes were corrections of transcription or printing errors.

There are a few significant changes that have been made to the Book of Mormon

Changes that would affect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon are limited to:

  • those that are substantive AND
    • could possibly change the doctrine of the book OR
    • could be used as evidence that the book was written by Joseph Smith.

There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and all of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it.

Many people in the church experience revelation that is to be dictated (such as a patriarch blessing). They will go back and alter their original dictation. This is done to clarify the initial premonitions received through the Spirit. The translation process for the Prophet Joseph may have occurred in a similar manner.


Response to claim: 132 - According to Oliver B. Huntington, the proper spelling of words was given by the Lord

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

According to Oliver B. Huntington, the proper spelling of words was given by the Lord. The authors quote from Huntington's journal as follows:

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.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

So far as is known, only the first spelling of proper names was controlled in the translation of our current Book of Mormon text.


Response to claim: 133 - Members of the Church have claimed that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon in archaeological research

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Members of the Church have claimed that the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon in archaeological research.

Author's sources:
  1. Letter written by Earnest L. English on May 3, 1936, that the authors claim "distributed to LDS church members by leaders (local) in Cleveland, Ohio in 1959."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Such members are ill-informed. The Church has never claimed this.


Question: Does the Smithsonian Institution send out a letter regarding the use of the Book of Mormon as a guide for archaeological research?


Jump to details:

Response to claim: 139 - Some Mormon archaeologists have begun to "face the truth" regarding Book of Mormon archeology by declaring that it is a "myth"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

Some Mormon archaeologists have begun to "face the truth" regarding Book of Mormon archeology by declaring that it is a "myth."

Author's sources:
  1. Dee Green, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp.76-78

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Green's article was dated even when the Tanners cited it, but it is now hopelessly out of date.


Question: Did Dee F. Green say that there is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology?

Green argues that the concept of "Book of Mormon archaeology" is inadequate, and that a broader anthropological perspective is necessary

Dee F. Green wrote the following in 1969:

I am not impressed with allegations that Book of Mormon archaeology converts people to the Church. My personal preference in Church members still runs to those who have a faith-inspired commitment to Jesus Christ, and if their testimonies need bolstering by "scientific proof" of the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter), I am prone to suggest that the basis of the testimony could stand some re-examination. 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….

What then, ought to be our approach to the Book of Mormon? In the first place it is a highly complex record demanding knowledge of a wide variety of anthropological skills from archaeology through ethnology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure. No one man outside the Church, much less anyone inside, has command of the necessary information. Furthermore, it isn't just the accumulation of knowledge and skill which is important; the framework in which it is applied must fit. Such a framework can be found only by viewing the Book of Mormon against a picture of New World culture history drawn by the entire discipline of anthropology. Singling out archaeology, a sub-discipline of anthropology, to carry the burden, especially in the naive manner employed by our "Book of Mormon Archaeologists," has resulted in a lopsided promulgation of archaeological myth.

We have never looked at the Book of Mormon in a cultural context. We have mined its pages for doctrine, counsel, and historical events but failed to treat it as a cultural document which can teach something about the inclusive life patterns of a people. And if we are ever to show a relationship between the Book of Mormon and the New World, this step will have to be taken. It is the coincidence of the cultural history of the Book of Mormon with the cultural history of the New World that will tip the scales in our favor....

Several years ago John Sorenson drew an analogy with the Bible which bears repeating:

Playing "the long shots," looking for inscriptions of a particular city, would be like placing the family bankroll on the gambling tables in Las Vegas. We might be lucky, but experience tells us not to plan on it. After lo, these many years of expensive research in Bible lands, there is still not final, incontrovertible proof of a single Biblical event from archaeology alone. The great value of all that effort has been in the broad demonstration that the Bible account fits the context time after time so exactly that no reasonable person can suppose other than that it is genuinely historic. Twenty years or less of systematic "painting the scenery" can yield the same sort of convincing background for the Book of Mormon, I believe. For too long Mormons have sought to "prove" the Book of Mormon authentic by what is really the-- most difficult kind of evidence--historical particulars. In the light of logic and the experience of Biblical archaeology it appears far safer to proceed on the middle ground of seeking general contextual confirmation, even though the results may not be so spectacular as many wish. In any case such a procedure-- the slow building up of a picture and a case--will leave us with a body of new knowledge and increased understanding of the times, manner, and circumstances when Book of Mormon events took place which seems to some of us likely to have more enduring value than “proof.”(italics in original) (emphasis added)

A dated source

The reference is from 1969. Green was a believing archaeologist; believing archaeologists now have more positive things to say about whether archaeology can tell us anything about the Book of Mormon. For a more current assessment, see:

  • John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link
  • Book of Mormon archaeology

The manner in which critics of the Church use this quote distorts Green's message and intent

The manner in which critics of the Church use this quote distorts Green's message and intent. A few representative quotes demonstrate that Green is not dismissing the possibility of Book of Mormon archaeology. Instead, Green insists that the approaches taken up to 1969 were inadequate, and misdirected:

  • Among the morass of archaeological half-truths and falsehoods which we have perpetrated in the name of Book of Mormon archaeology, only Jakeman's suggestion of a limited geography and Sorenson's insistence on a cautious, highly controlled trait-complex approach are worth considering. The ink we have spilled on Book of Mormon archaeology has probably done more harm than good.
  • I am not impressed with allegations that Book of Mormon archaeology converts people to the Church. My personal preference in Church members still runs to those who have a faith-inspired commitment to Jesus Christ, and if their testimonies need bolstering by "scientific proof" of the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter), I am prone to suggest that the basis of the testimony could stand some re-examination. 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 [note 16 reads: Fortunately now changed to the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, with such qualified men as Merlin Myers, Ray T. Matheny, and Dale Berge giving students a sound and realistic education in anthropology.] 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 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 (italics in original).
  • Another myth which needs dispelling is our Lamanite syndrome. Most American Indians are neither descendants of Laman nor necessarily of Book of Mormon peoples. The Book itself makes no such claim....
  • Finally, I should like to lay at rest the myth that by scurrying around Latin America looking for horses and wheels we can prove the Book of Mormon.

Green also praises some aspects of the approach taken by the Church and a few scholars

  • ...only Jakeman's suggestion of a limited geography and Sorenson's insistence on a cautious, highly controlled trait-complex approach are worth considering.
  • Considerable embarrassment over the various unscholarly postures assumed by the geographical-historical school resulted in the Church Archaeological Committee's attitude that interpretation should be an individual matter, that is, that any archaeology officially sponsored by the Church (i.e., the monies for which are provided by tithing) should concern itself only with the culture history interpretations normally within the scope of archaeology, and any attempt at correlation or interpretation involving the Book of Mormon should be eschewed. This enlightened policy, much to the gratification of the true professional archaeologist both in and outside the Church, has been scrupulously followed. It was made quite plain to me in 1963 when I was first employed by the BYU-NWAF [New World Archaeological Foundation] that my opinions with regard to Book of Mormon archaeology were to be kept to myself, and my field report was to be kept entirely from any such references.

Some of my colleagues and students, both in and out of the Church, have wondered if perhaps the real reason for the Church's involvement in archaeology (especially since it is centered in Mesoamerica with emphasis on the Preclassic period) is to help prove the Book of Mormon. While this may represent the individual thinking of some members of the Church Archaeological Committee, it has not intruded itself on the work of the foundation except to limit its activities to the preclassic cultures of Mesoamerica. Regardless of individual or group motives, however, the approach of the BYU-NWAF has been outstandingly successful. My numerous non-Church colleagues in Mesoamerican archaeology hold high regard for the work of the foundation and for most of its staff. Gareth Lowe, director of the BYU-NWAF, is as good a Mesoamerican archaeologist as there is in the country, and the foundation's outstanding publication series (which never mentions the Book of Mormon) consistently received good reviews in the professional literature.

Green is calling for a different approach

  • What then, ought to be our approach to the Book of Mormon? In the first place it is a highly complex record demanding knowledge of a wide variety of anthropological skills from archaeology through ethnology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure. No one man outside the Church, much less anyone inside, has command of the necessary information. Furthermore, it isn't just the accumulation of knowledge and skill which is important; the framework in which it is applied must fit. Such a framework can be found only by viewing the Book of Mormon against a picture of New World culture history drawn by the entire discipline of anthropology. Singling out archaeology, a sub-discipline of anthropology, to carry the burden, especially in the naive manner employed by our "Book of Mormon Archaeologists," has resulted in a lopsided promulgation of archaeological myth.
  • We have never looked at the Book of Mormon in a cultural context. We have mined its pages for doctrine, counsel, and historical events but failed to treat it as a cultural document which can teach something about the inclusive life patterns of a people. And if we are ever to show a relationship between the Book of Mormon and the New World, this step will have to be taken. It is the coincidence of the cultural history of the Book of Mormon with the cultural history of the New World that will tip the scales in our favor.

Not surprisingly, it is this approach recommended by Green that has borne fruit in the thirty-five years since his article.

Also not surprisingly, this fact is carefully hidden from the critic's audience.

  • For an up-to-date assessment of the Book of Mormon and archaeology, see:
    • John E. Clark, "'Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief'," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/2 (2005). [38–49] link


Response to claim: 140-141 - Mormon archaeologist Thomas Stuart Ferguson lost his testimony because he couldn't find any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

Mormon archaeologist Thomas Stuart Ferguson lost his testimony because he couldn't find any archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Author's sources:
  1. Visit by Thomas Stuart Ferguson to the authors on December 2, 1970.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Ferguson was not an archaeologist.


Question: Was Thomas Stuart Ferguson an archaeologist?

Ferguson never studied archaeology at a professional level - he was self-educated in that area

As John Sorensen, who worked with Ferguson, recalled:

[Stan] Larson implies that Ferguson was one of the "scholars and intellectuals in the Church" and that "his study" was conducted along the lines of reliable scholarship in the "field of archaeology." Those of us with personal experience with Ferguson and his thinking knew differently. He held an undergraduate law degree but never studied archaeology or related disciplines at a professional level, although he was self-educated in some of the literature of American archaeology. He held a naive view of "proof," perhaps related to his law practice where one either "proved" his case or lost the decision; compare the approach he used in his simplistic lawyerly book One Fold and One Shepherd. His associates with scientific training and thus more sophistication in the pitfalls involving intellectual matters could never draw him away from his narrow view of "research." (For example, in April 1953, when he and I did the first archaeological reconnaissance of central Chiapas, which defined the Foundation's work for the next twenty years, his concern was to ask if local people had found any figurines of "horses," rather than to document the scores of sites we discovered and put on record for the first time.) His role in "Mormon scholarship" was largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst.

Ferguson was never an expert on archaeology and the Book of Mormon (let alone on the book of Abraham, about which his knowledge was superficial). He was not one whose careful "study" led him to see greater light, light that would free him from Latter-day Saint dogma, as Larson represents. Instead he was just a layman, initially enthusiastic and hopeful but eventually trapped by his unjustified expectations, flawed logic, limited information, perhaps offended pride, and lack of faith in the tedious research that real scholarship requires. The negative arguments he used against the Latter-day Saint scriptures in his last years display all these weaknesses.

Larson, like others who now wave Ferguson's example before us as a case of emancipation from benighted Mormon thinking, never faces the question of which Tom Ferguson was the real one. Ought we to respect the hard-driving younger man whose faith-filled efforts led to a valuable major research program, or should we admire the double-acting cynic of later years, embittered because he never hit the jackpot on, as he seems to have considered it, the slot-machine of archaeological research? I personally prefer to recall my bright-eyed, believing friend, not the aging figure Larson recommends as somehow wiser. [16]


Peterson and Roper: "We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists"

Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper: [17]

"Thomas Stuart Ferguson," says Stan Larson in the opening chapter of Quest for the Gold Plates, "is best known among Mormons as a popular fireside lecturer on Book of Mormon archaeology, as well as the author of One Fold and One Shepherd, and coauthor of Ancient America and the Book of Mormon" (p. 1). Actually, though, Ferguson is very little known among Latter-day Saints. He died in 1983, after all, and "he published no new articles or books after 1967" (p. 135). The books that he did publish are long out of print. "His role in 'Mormon scholarship' was," as Professor John L. Sorenson puts it, "largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst." We know of no one who cites Ferguson as an authority, except countercultists, and we suspect that a poll of even those Latter-day Saints most interested in Book of Mormon studies would yield only a small percentage who recognize his name. Indeed, the radical discontinuity between Book of Mormon studies as done by Milton R. Hunter and Thomas Stuart Ferguson in the fifties and those practiced today by, say, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) could hardly be more striking. Ferguson's memory has been kept alive by Stan Larson and certain critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as much as by anyone, and it is tempting to ask why. Why, in fact, is such disproportionate attention being directed to Tom Ferguson, an amateur and a writer of popularizing books, rather than, say, to M. Wells Jakeman, a trained scholar of Mesoamerican studies who served as a member of the advisory committee for the New World Archaeological Foundation?5 Dr. Jakeman retained his faith in the Book of Mormon until his death in 1998, though the fruit of his decades-long work on Book of Mormon geography and archaeology remains unpublished.


Response to claim: 141-142 - Lehi would never have written using an Egyptian language

The author(s) make(s) the following claim:

Lehi would never have written using an Egyptian language. Jewish scriptures could not have been written in Egyptian.

Author's sources:
  1. M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, pp.89-91.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The authors' assumption is incorrect.


Question: Would an Israelite use Egyptian?

Book of Mormon Central, KnoWhy #4: Did Ancient Israelites Write in Egyptian? (Video)

By the ninth to sixth centuries before Christ, Israelites used Egyptian numerals mingled with Hebrew text

Hieroglyphics: Hieroglyphs from the Black Schist sarcophagus of Ankhnesneferibre. Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, about 530 BC, Thebes.off-site
Hieratic: A section of the Prisse papyrus from the Bibliothèque nationale de France, containing the Precepts of Kakemna and the Precepts of Ptahhotep in hieratic. Enlarge Source: Plate IV. The S.S. Teacher's Edition: The Holy Bible, (New York: Henry Frowde, Publisher to the University of Oxford, 1896).off-site
Demotic: Inscription from the Rosetta Stone in demotic.off-site

The claim that Israelites would not use Egyptian is clearly false. By the ninth to sixth centuries before Christ, Israelites used Egyptian numerals mingled with Hebrew text. The Papyrus Amherst 63 contains a text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) using Egyptian characters. This text was originally dated to the second century B.C., but this has since been extended to the 4th century B.C.[18]

More significant, however, was an ostracon uncovered at Arad in 1967. Dating "toward the end of the seventh century B.C.," it reflects usage from shortly before 600 B.C., the time of Lehi. The text on the ostracon is written in a combination of Egyptian hieratic and Hebrew characters, but can be read entirely as Egyptian. Of the seventeen words in the text, ten are written in [Egyptian] hieratic and seven in Hebrew. However, all the words written in Hebrew can be read as Egyptian words, while one of them, which occurs twice, has the same meaning in both Egyptian and Hebrew.19 Of the ten words written in hieratic script, four are numerals (one occurring in each line).20 One symbol, denoting a measure of capacity, occurs four times (once in each of the four lines), and the remaining Egyptian word occurs twice. Thus, while seventeen words appear on the ostracon, if one discounts the recurrence of words, only six words are written in hieratic (of which four are numerals), and six in Hebrew.[19]

Anti-Mormon authors Ankerberg and Weldon claim:

Mormonism has never explained how godly Jews [sic] of A.D. 400 allegedly knew Egyptian, nor why they would have written their sacred records entirely in the language of their pagan, idolatrous enemies" (p. 284). "How likely is it that the allegedly Jewish [sic] Nephites would have used the Egyptian language to write their sacred scriptures? Their strong antipathy to the Egyptians and their culture makes this difficult to accept. When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" (pp. 294-95). "[N]o such language [as reformed Egyptian] exists and Egyptologists declare this unequivocally.[20]

They are, however, spectacularly wrong, and "Mormonism" has explained why repeatedly:

The statement "When modern Jews copy their scripture, they use Hebrew. They do not use Egyptian or Arabic, the language of their historic enemies" is quite an astonishing display of ignorance. Since the Egyptian language has been dead for centuries, it is hardly remarkable that modern Jews do not read the Bible in Egyptian. On the other hand, "the first and most important rendering [of the Old Testament] from Hebrew [into Arabic] was made by Sa'adya the Ga'on, a learned Jew who was head of the rabbinic school at Sura in Babylon (died 942)" (George A. Buttrick, ed., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible [hereafter IDB], 4 vols. and supplement [Nashville: Abingdon, 1962–1976], 4:758b). Thus, Jews have indeed translated the Bible into "Arabic, the language of their historic enemies." They also have translated it into the language of their "historic enemies" the Greeks (IDB 4:750b on the Septuagint) and Aramaeans (IDB 1:185-93; 4:749-50, on the Aramaic Targums).[21]

There was a clear evolution of Egyptian script in the Old World, and these modified scripts were in use in Lehi's day. People of Lehi's time and place did use both Hebrew and Egyptian, just as Nephi claimed (See 1 Nephi 1:2).


Response to claim: 144 - There is no such language as "Reformed Egyptian"

The author(s) of The Changing World of Mormonism make(s) the following claim:

None of the characters on the Anthon transcript bear any resemblance to known hieroglyphics found in the New World. There is no such language as "Reformed Egyptian."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Book of Mormon does not claim that the language was called "Reformed Egyptian," but rather that the unnamed language was a form of "reformed" Egyptian.


Notes

  1. ↑ New Testament repeatedly refer to the "name of Jesus Christ" as in Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10; 8:12; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 10; 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
  2. ↑ Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Universal Subject Guide - Jeshua; Bible Dictionary (LDS English edition of the Holy Scriptures)," 713.
  3. ↑ (Michael L. Brown, “What Is the Original Hebrew Name for Jesus? And Is It True That the Name Jesus Is Really a Pagan Corruption of the Name Zeus?” Ask Dr. Brown (3 January 2013; web Dec 27, 2016).
  4. ↑ Ensign (September 1984): pp. 24–25.
  5. ↑ [citation needed]
  6. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, (Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), Chapter 22, references silently removed—consult original for citations.
  7. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, "Lecture 27: Omni; Words of Mormon; Mosiah 1: The End of the Small Plates and The Coronation of Mosiah," in Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Transcripts of lectures presented to an Honors Book of Mormon Class at Brigham Young University 1988-1990, Vol. 1, (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993), 430. ISBN 1591565715.
  8. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
  9. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985).
  10. ↑ Matthew Roper, "Unanswered Mormon Scholars (Review of Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism Raised by Mormon Defenders)," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 87–145. [{{{1}}} off-site]
  11. ↑ Brigham H. Roberts, "A Brief Debate on the Book of Mormon," in Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. (1907), 1:333. Vol 1 GL direct link Vol 2 GL direct link
  12. ↑ Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd edition, (Vol. 6 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 276–277.
  13. ↑ Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 2:139. ISBN 0941214133. Quoted in Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461. Volume 4 link See also Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 194. off-site
  14. ↑ Royal Skousen, "Changes In the Book of Mormon," 2002 FAIR Conference proceedings.
  15. ↑ Daniel K. Judd and Allen W. Stoddard, "Adding and Taking Away 'Without a Cause' in Matthew 5:22," in How the New Testament Came to Be, ed. Kent P. Jackson and Frank F. Judd Jr. (Provo and Salt Lake City: Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2006),159-160.
  16. ↑ John L. Sorenson, "Addendum," to John Gee, "A Tragedy of Errors (Review of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri by Charles M. Larson," FARMS Review of Books 4/1 (1992): 93–119. off-site
  17. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson and Matthew Roper, "Ein Heldenleben? On Thomas Stuart Ferguson as an Elias for Cultural Mormons," The FARMS Review 16:1 (2004)
  18. ↑ John Gee and John A. Tvedtnes, "Ancient Manuscripts Fit Book of Mormon Pattern," Insights 19:2 (February 1999): 4–5.off-site
  19. ↑ Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [156–163] link
  20. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness (Review of Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism by John Ankerberg and John Weldon)," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 1–86. off-site
  21. ↑ Ankerberg and Weldon, 294.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/The_Changing_World_of_Mormonism/Chapter_5&oldid=235851"