In reply to the chapter, “The World’s Most Perfect Book”
Page 99 and 100
The authors, in an introduction to another chapter seeking to discredit the Book of Mormon, begin by bringing up the old “Kinderhook plates” issue [1] In trying to show that Joseph Smith was tricked into accepting a forgery they quote from his journal of May l, 1843, ” l have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham . . . ” The authors then point out that “the [Kinderhook] plates were a deliberate [hoax] carefully manufactured and planted in a mound to be ‘discovered.'” They then say in effect, “If Joseph fell into this trap how can we trust him with the Book of Mormon?” The authors also say, “This [hoax] was confessed by the three men responsible about a month after Joseph Smith’s death.”
There is no documentation for this by the authors. The earliest statement I am aware of claiming that the Kinderhook plates were a hoax was in a letter from W. P. Harris twelve years after the discovery and dated April 25, 1855, to a Mr. Flagg. The letter, however, did not come to light until 1912. Mr. Harris was one of the nine men involved in the “hoax.” In an affidavit dated June 30, 1879, W. Fugate, another of the original finders, stated, thirty-six years after the finding of the plates, “They were a fraud.”
(Why did Fugate wait thirty-six years to “expose Joseph Smith,” and wait until the other eight men had died?)
In the 1879 Fugate affidavit, written for a bitter anti-Mormon, James T. Cobb, it states “the Mormons wished to take the newly found plates to Joe Smith, but he [Cobb] refused to let them go.” Was this the way to prove a hoax? Why not let Joseph Smith have them if the purpose was entrapment?
Also, since Robert S. Wiley, one of the plate finders, tried to sell the plates to the National Institute on November 15, 1843, one has to wonder if a “profit motive” instead of a “destroy-a-prophet motive” could have existed.
The plates disappeared but “one” came into possession of the Chicago Historical Society in 1920. Several institutions have analyzed this plate, including Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, and they all indicate this plate is a hoax because it would be the only example of pre-Columbian brass. But could the plates have been brought by someone from the Old World?
However, some evidence is now being given that the one plate that has been considered as the lone survivor is a “hoax.” Since it is a different size than the original plates were reported to be, could the originals, wherever they are, still prove to be authentic? Also, Fugate, who called them a fraud said, “They were made of copper.” The Chicago plate is brass.
The most interesting point, however, is that the May 1, 1843, entry in Joseph’s journal was probably not written by Joseph Smith at all but added much later by a scribe. These scribes added what they wanted and put it in first person form, a practice widespread during the nineteenth century by many historians in America and Europe who were not sophisticated in the much higher twentieth century research standards. No original document written by Joseph Smith that has been found so far makes any statement about Kinderhook plates.
For a detailed treatment of the whole issue, read “An Analysis of the Kinderhook Plates” by Dr. Paul R. Cheesman, a BYU professor, from which much of this summarized material was taken. In his paper he points out:
As of now, the original source of Joseph Smith’s statement, under the date of May 1, 1843, concerning the Kinderhook Plates, cannot be found. Much of Volume V of the History of the Church was recorded by Leo Hawkins in 1853, after the saints were in Utah, and was collected by Willard Richards from journals. Liberty was taken by historians of those days to put the narrative in the first person, even though the source was not as such. Verification of the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s statement is still under study.
Since the above was written, researcher Stanley B. Kimball has found that the source for the statement about the Kinderhook plates that is attributed to Joseph Smith in History of the Church is the diary of William Clayton.
The above reasons as to why the Kinderhook plates do not expose Joseph Smith have been around for years, but are not deemed necessary to mention by the authors of The God Makers.
Mormon publications have for years stated the possibility that the Kinderhook plates were a fraud. (See Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66-74.)
Page 101, line 6
Mormonism began “as a deliberate scam that got out of hand and mushroomed into something beyond the imagination of its original designers.”
To Joseph Smith the importance and future growth of a church with millions of followers was anticipated. Many times he referred to the expected success of the Kingdom of God he was helping to restore. On one occasion he received a revelation slating, How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri River in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints. (D&C 121:33.) Elsewhere the book maintains Joseph Smith had real experiences, but they were satanic and not from God. If these were real satanic experiences and Joseph Smith was deceived by the devil to think they were from God, then Joseph Smith was misled, but not guilty of a scam. His spiritual experiences were divinely given, however, just as he claimed.
Page 101, lines 17-25
Earlier, in chapter seven, the authors tried to discredit the testimony of eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Now the charge is made that more than three witnesses is too many. “There were to be only three witnesses” and ” ‘to none else will I [the Lord] grant this power’ ” is the evidence offered from D&C 5:10-15.
Note the word “only” is not in the revelation. Why do the authors ignore the Book of Mormon verses which predict “three witnesses shall behold it [the plates of the Book of Mormon], by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered . . . And there is none other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God”? (2 Nephi 27:12-13) The authors without quoting any verses claim “Ether 5:2-4 also makes this clear [that there should only be three witnesses].” But reading those verses we learn, “Ye may show the plates unto those who shall assist to bring forth this work; and unto three shall they be shown by the power of God.”
As before, the book does not mention that the three witnesses gave a different kind of testimony than the eight. The Lord did show the plates by an angel and spoke in His own words to only the three witnesses. The authors who dismissed this testimony in chapter seven, because it claims to be involved with the supernatural, now do not want to accept a completely different “hands-on,” very ordinary, human kind of evidence, which the eight witnesses claimed. On page 101, line 19 they ask “Why these two separate groups?” The reason seems obvious: to leave secular evidence with those who are reluctant to accept evidence from heaven.
Page 101, line 29
“‘The Three Witnesses’ only saw the plates in the hands of an angel in a vision. “
The reference is a church missionary pamphlet. The pamphlet, however, does not use the word “vision” but refers to it as an actual occurrence that happened twice (“Joseph Smith’s Testimony,” pp. 19-20).
Page 101, line 14
The authors accuse Oliver Cowdery, among others, of being “probably a co-conspirator” in the “scam.”
The authors give no explanation why Oliver Cowdery, disgruntled with Joseph Smith for several years, did not expose the “scam” or why he eventually came back into the LDS Church in 1850.
Page 102, line 3
“Only the three Smiths out of the eleven witnesses [of the Book of Mormon] remained in Mormonism.”
This, of course, is wrong. Christian and Peter Whitmer remained until their deaths. The authors also fail to mention that two of the “three” witnesses returned to the Church—Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris. Nor do the authors point out that those leaving the Church consistently continued to affirm their testimonies of the Book of Mormon.
Page 102, line 13
“All eleven of the ‘witnesses’ were astonishingly unstable and unreliable.”
The available evidence points to the opposite conclusion and has been treated thoroughly elsewhere. (See Richard Anderson, investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses).
In a nutshell:
- Martin Harris was perhaps the most prosperous man in Palmyra, twice the age of Joseph Smith, at the time the Book of Mormon came forth. Why would he risk his reputation supporting a youngster if the authors’ charges about Joseph Smith and his family were true? He traveled to Salt Lake City in 1870 and rejoined the LDS Church.
- Oliver Cowdery was reliable enough to be a schoolteacher and successful lawyer, and at one time. Assistant President of the LDS Church.
- David Whitmer became a respected community leader in Richmond, Missouri, and the town’s leading citizens attested to his reliability and character prior to his again reaffirming his Book of Mormon testimony (Ibid.).
An objective study of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon reveals men of strong character.
Page 102, line 28
“Martin Harris . . . ‘saw’ Jesus standing beside Joseph Smith in a meeting, though no one else present except the ‘Prophet’ saw him.”
The footnote refers to the Max H Parkin “Conflict at Kirtland” thesis, pp. 82-83. Dr. Parkin’s quotation from the Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner diary does not say that Martin “saw” Jesus, but that Joseph Smith on this very spiritual occasion asked the group, “Brothers and Sisters, do you know who has been in our midst this night?” Martin Harris then replied, “I know, it was our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Joseph then said to Martin Harris, “God has revealed that to you.” When God reveals something to a human being it does not usually include physical evidence; nevertheless, the authors claim that Martin Harris on this occasion actually claimed he “saw” God. From the reading of the quotation one cannot conclude this. When Christ in the New Testament said to the Twelve, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20), he did not mean that each of the Twelve would constantly see him with their physical eyes. But Christ can be perceived in our midst and this is what the journal entry is referring to and not a physical sighting of Christ.
Page 103, line 1
“Indeed, Martin Harris did go from one thing to another, changing his religious beliefs no less than thirteen times.”
There is no documentation. Richard Lloyd Anderson points out the errors of this accusation in his Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, pp. 168-169. He gives evidence that the alleged thirteen religious changes of Martin Harris are overstated. Out of touch for decades with mainstream Mormonism because he did not move westward with the body of the Church, Martin Harris was subject to differing influences in his desire for supportive religious affiliation. Nevertheless he never denied his testimony of the Restoration, and he made only one religious change after his excommunication that was not with some Mormon-oriented group. Richard Anderson has also called the charges of Martin Harris’ early religious affiliations, before joining Mormonism, exaggerated and from a bitter anti-LDS source.
Page 103, line 16
“Most Mormons today naively imagine that Joseph Smith’s ‘visions’ of angels . . . [are] unique.”
One of the first things every new member and every LDS youth is taught is that Joseph Smith lived in an environment of much religious fervor and activity.
Joseph Smith’s total work, however, was unique. Where else do we find anyone coming close to all the LDS prophet accomplished? Elder Bruce R. McConkie has said of Joseph Smith: “Here is a man who has given to our present world more holy scripture than any single prophet who ever lived . . . more . . . than the total of the dozen most prolific prophetic penmen of the past” (Ensign, May 1976, p. 95).
While he was still alive the New York Times called Joseph Smith “one of the greatest men of the age” (Sept. 4, 1843). People magazine in listing Joseph Smith among the twenty-five most important persons in the U.S.A. said he “was probably the most influential religious leader in American history” (Jan. 1, 1979, p. 149). Just some of Joseph Smith’s accomplishments that made him different from ordinary “glass lookers” are on the accompanying accomplishment list, compiled by Robert J. Matthews.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH
Following are several major areas of contribution made by the Prophet Joseph Smith in establishing a dispensation o the Gospel upon the earth. These illustrate the statement that he “has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any man that ever lived in it.”
-Doctrine and Covenants 135:3
1. AN APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST
As an apostle of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith put forth to the world a sure knowledge of Christ and of His saving principles. He was the greatest witness of the resurrection since Peter, and sealed his testimony with his blood.
2. SCRIPTURE AND WRITINGS
Book of Mormon (1829).
Pearl of Great Price:
Book of Moses (1830).
Book of Abraham (1835-42).
Matthew 24.
Writings of Joseph Smith.
The Articles of Faith.
Record of John—extract (1829) D&C 7
Inspired Translation of Bible (1830-33)
Doctrine and Covenants.
History of the Church (DHC) 7 vol.
3. RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND DOCTRINE
God:
Nature of the Godhead.
Man:
New concept of the nature of man. Man’s relationship to God. Immortality of the soul, including pre-mortal existence. Sinlessness of little children.
Eternalism:
Eternal nature of marriage.
Resurrection of all mankind:
Future kingdoms with and without glory.
4. PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY
Priesthood:
Aaronic (1829).
Melchizedek (1829).
Keys:
Sealing (1836) (Elijah).
Gathering of Israel (1836) (Moses).
Gospel of Abraham (1836) (Elias).
Many other keys (D&C 128:21).
5. CHURCH ORGANIZATION
Presiding Councils:
Bishop (1831).
First Presidency (1833).
Patriarch (1833).
Council of Twelve (1835).
Council of Seventy (1835).
Quorums and Officers:
Quorum duties, size, and organization (D&C 20,107).
Members of Church:
Requirements for admission (D&C 20). Duties (D&C 20,107).
Judicial System:
(D&C 42,68,107).
Stake and Ward Organization:
Stake—Kirtland, Ohio.
Wards—Nauvoo, Illinois.
6. MISSIONARY ACTIVITY
Principles:
Active missionary service to be major activity of this dispensation.
Accomplishment:
Started formal missionary work in 1830.
7. GATHERING OF ISRAEL
Principles:
Established the idea of the “gathering” (Teachings, p. 92).
Accomplishment:
Started the gathering in this dispensation.
Gathered many thousands from throughout the American continent and Europe.
8. ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Established the Principles of:
Consecration and Stewardship.
United Order.
Tithing.
Welfare System.
Accomplishments:
United Order in Ohio and Missouri.
Tithing instituted.
9. TEMPLES
Principles:
Established the true purpose of temples.
Ordinances for the living and dead: Baptisms, endowments, sealings.
Accomplishment:
First temple, 1836.
Nauvoo temple under construction at time of the Prophet’s death.
10. GENEALOGICAL PROGRAM
Introduced the principles of record keeping and family genealogy. Emphasized the absolute importance of this work (D&C 127, 128).
11. EDUCATION
Principles:
Taught that glory of God is intelligence.
No one saved in ignorance.
Accomplishment:
Established School of the Prophets, 1832 (first school in America tor adult education).
12. POLITICAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
Political:
Developed design for city of Zion, (1833).
Candidate for office of President of U.S. in 1844.
Gave views on power and policy of United States government
Territorial expansion.
Liberation of slaves.
National banking system.
Prison reform.
Military:
Established pattern for Zion’s camp; later used in exodus to Utah.
Lieutenant-general of Nauvoo Legion
13. CODE OF HEALTH
Word of Wisdom, 1833, (D&C 89).
14. WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Organized Relief Society, 1842.
15. SCRIPTURAL MEANINGS
Gave increased meaning to:
Revelation 14:6-7, an angel with the Gospel. Isaiah 4:2, mountain of the Lord’s House.
Isaiah 29:10-14, the sealed book.
Malachi 4:5-6, coming of Elijah.
I Peter 3:18-20; 4:6, the Gospel preached to the dead.
I Corinthians 15:29, baptism for dead.
Explained the meaning of many of Jesus’ parables.
16. SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS
Indestructibility of matter (DHC 6:308-9).
No immaterial matter; spirit is pure and refined element (D&C 131:7-8).
Truth is light and spirit (D&C 84:6-~8; 93:2~30).
Knowledge of the planetary system (D&C 88:43-44; 130:4-6; Abraham 1:31; 3:5-17).
17. HISTORICAL TRUTHS
Origin of American aborigines.
History of ancient American peoples.
Origin of writing and record keeping (Moses 6:5,6,46).
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS:
D&C—Doctrine and Covenants
DHC—Documentary History of the Church
Teachings—Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
Compiled by Robert J. Matthews
Page 103, line 23
“Some of these groups were very similar to Mormonism,” the text states to show Mormonism was not unique. As an example the book uses James Strong as having similar ideas in his movement.
One would expect an offshoot to be somewhat like the group it broke away from.
Page 103, line 28
“At least for a time all of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, except Oliver Cowdery, accepted [James] Strong as Joseph Smith’s successor. “
If objectivity were the purpose of the book, at least the word “living” should be used in connection with these witnesses since more than half of the original eleven had died by this time. Also, why is it not pointed out that all soon left Strang’s movement?
Page 104, line 21
“[The Shakers were] one of the groups that Martin Harris joined. He seems to have remained faithful to them the rest of his days, claiming ‘repeatedly that he had as much evidence for {the] Shaker Book as he had for the Book of Mormon.’ “
The source is a thesis by Wayne Gunnell, Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to The Book of Mormon, p. 52. In actuality this source on the page cited states that Martin Harris was rebaptized into the LDS Church in Kirtland in 1842 soon after he had joined the Shakers. Although the thesis statement which the authors quote is correct, it appears to be based on hearsay. The book fails to report the following information from the same page: “Notwithstanding his profession of belief in a new religion, the testimony that Martin declared for Shakerism soon lost its fire.”
Again the authors ignore evidence that is contrary to what they want the reader to believe even when it comes from the same page of the source they are quoting. Richard Anderson in his Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, p. 168, says Harris’ “sympathy for Quakerism [was] without full participation.”
The authors, as before, make no mention of Harris’ migration to Utah in 1870 to join with the Latter-day Saints, where he often repeated his testimony of the Book of Mormon until his death five years later in 1875.
Page 105, line 3
“Glass-looking” and “money digging” had “obsessed” Joseph Smith “and his family for years.”
Joseph Smith’s involvement in seeking treasure during his early life was common in his locale. During the 1820s, in the northeastern United States, digging for treasure was neither uncommon nor disreputable. The Palmyra Herald on 24 July 1822 quoted the Montpelier (Vermont) Watchman as saying that “We could name, if we pleased, at least five hundred respectable men, who do, in the simplicity and sincerity of their hearts verily believe that immense treasures lie concealed upon our green mountains; many of whom have been for a number of years, most industriously and perseveringly engaged in digging it up/’ (William Mulder and A. Russell Mortensen, eds., Among the Mormons, p. 33.)
See page 93, lines 11-15 for earlier comments on this accusation.
Page 105, lines 15-18
“Ouija board, crystal ball, pendulum. . . or other divination devices . . . were commonly used by early Mormon Apostles’ it is claimed without documentation.
Earlier the authors promised that they would document everything.
Since the book asserts the LDS Church has satanic connections, such a point is worthy of references.
Latter-day Saints have been warned: “Those who use the devil’s tools for any purpose may soon find themselves influenced and controlled by him. In the hands of [those] who have actual contact with evil and unseen forces, the use of ouija boards is a wicked and devilish thing.” The counsel adds that the use even for amusement is unwise (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [1979], p. 551).
Page 106, lines 14-29
“Satan presented four basic lies to Eve/’ the authors say.
It is interesting that this list describing Satan and the occult is opposite to what Latter-day Saints believe:
Authors Say Satan Teaches |
The LDS Church Teaches |
| 1. Denial of personal God who makes moral pronouncements. This implies an impersonal force. | There is a personal God who makes pronouncements to people. |
| 2. Since this impersonal force is in everything, eating from one forbidden tree wouldn’t bring death. Therefore we don’t die but are recycled through reincarnation. | Eating from the forbidden fruit would bring spiritual and physical death. There is no recycling through reincarnation. This is the only life we have to prepare to meet God (Alma 34:33). |
| 3. We can all become gods through mastery of this force | We can only become a god through obedience to God’s moral pronouncements including those learned in the temple. |
| 4. This mastery of godhood comes through being initiated into a secret gnosis (e.g., eating of the Tree of Knowledge). | The mastery comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. |
It seems the authors, without perhaps intending to, have made a strong case that the LDS Church stands for everything opposite of Satanism. Of course the list of what LDS doctrine teaches on the above comparison is not what the authors want the reader to know as LDS doctrine. And their whole book is a distortion of LDS teachings. The reader must learn elsewhere, not from The God Makers, what the LDS Church teaches.
Page 106, line 30 to page 107, line 13
As shown above, the authors’ foregoing list of Satan’s four basic lies as outlined on page 106, lines 14-29 is exactly opposite of what the LDS Church teaches. It follows that, while the authors make their “Mormon Connection” fit their interpretation of LDS doctrine, that section is composed of incorrect accusations, such as:
Page 107, lines 14 to 28
“There were so many strange visions and so much weird behavior among the early Mormons’ the book claims citing some reliable, some questionable, and often no sources.
The book attributes some of the “strange” occurrences to satanic influence. Of course the scriptures speak of “wonders and signs” in connection with God also. “And these signs shall follow them that believe” (Mark 16:17) and “many wonders and signs were done by the apostles” (Acts 2:43). The scriptures do warn of “false prophets and . . . signs,” (Matt. 24:24) and the authors of course charge that everything LDS falls into this category. One of such signs the authors make light of is quoted from Max Parkin’s thesis. Conflict at Kirtland: “Old Elder Beamon, who had died a few months before, was seen” (p. 331). However, the authors omit John Pulsipher’s previous words: “They worked and prayed and the Lord worked with them.” What is spiritual to some is considered “magic and demonic” by others. The spiritual experiences of the “Early-day Saints” in the New Testament are also considered “strange and weird” by the nonbelievers.
Do the authors also discredit the biblical events that seem strange? What right do the authors have to take what is sacred to millions and falsely call it strange, weird and satanic? The authors would do well to ponder the Prophet Nephi’s words in the Book of Mormon: “\ do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred . . .. For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth . . . others set at naught and trample under their feet” (I Nephi 19:6-7).
Page 108, line 30 to page 109, line 8
“Here again we have an obviously evil manifestation,” the authors claim, referring to a satanic manifestation.
Of course this manifestation was satanic because Joseph Smith identified it as such. In fact Joseph Smith “commanded Satan to leave.” But the authors want everyone to think that this strange occurrence was the kind of experience Latter-day Saints consider to be from God. The authors apparently do not deny the possibility of Satan manifesting himself. A manifestation of Satan can be his effort to thwart God’s work, as it was with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and Christ’s temptations with the devil prior to the Savior’s ministry. There are other examples: “And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David” (I Chr. 21:1). Christ cast out devils often (Matt. 12:28, Mark 3:15).
In still another incident “of a screaming person” the authors again quote out of context. The thesis of Max Parkin, Conflict at Kirtland, also says, “The Prophet instructed Lyman Wight to ‘chase’ Satan out” (p. 80). Again we have examples of quoting only selectively, out of context, to alter the real meanings.
Page 109, line 19
“Most of [the above demonic demonstrations] were accepted as genuine revelations or manifestations.”
This is not accurate. The documentation in full context identifies the incidents as satanic ones that were rebuked through priesthood power.
Page 109, lines 24-34
The authors fault Heber C. Kimball for telling the saints that he kept weapons by his bedside and the “devil does not like to sleep there,” in order to show that Latter-day Saints had superstitious beliefs in handling demons.
The entire talk is not about demons at all, but about the coming of Johnston’s Army to Utah to put down a falsely reported LDS uprising. When Heber C. Kimball referred to the “devil” he was taking poetic license, meaning the “enemies” in this state of “war.” He was telling members that they might need to defend themselves. The talk was also for the benefit of U.S. government spies in the audience. The Latter-day Saints were trying to slow down the advancing army by “talking tough.” This invasion of government troops became known as the “Utah War” in U.S. history.
Page 109, last paragraph to page 110, line 4
” ‘You may leave out the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants’ and just stick with the New Testament and ‘you will arrive at salvation’ ” the authors quote from Brigham Young.
Instead of admitting that LDS people at least claim to believe the Bible (which the authors denied earlier), they now think they have found a “perfect example of how Mormon ‘Prophets’ contradict each other.” However, in the next lines of the same speech Brigham Young said those who truly believe the Bible are more likely to “find out that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet.” It is correct: non-LDS people can obtain a degree of salvation, but LDS doctrine also affirms that a Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful will gain a higher salvation, known as exaltation. This is what Brigham Young was talking about as a reading of the complete account makes clear.
Page 110, line 7
Apostle Orson Pratt said, “They [the United States] will be destroyed from the land and sent down to hell.”
Earlier the book claimed that the Latter-day Saints did not believe in hell. See page 77, lines 4 and 23 for an earlier LDS explanation concerning hell, which will show that Orson Pratt’s statement did not contemplate the “traditional” meaning of hell.
Page 110, lines 17-19
“Obviously Prophet Smith held the Book of Mormon to be far above the Bible, and that is still the position of the Mormon Church today. “
Official statements of the Church place equal value on the Bible with the other books the LDS consider as scripture. One of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to testify of the basic truthfulness of the Bible. Latter-day Saints do believe the Book of Mormon helps clarify the Bible.
One doctrine the Book of Mormon clarifies is that the sacrament is symbolic and not transubstantiation (literally eating the flesh of Christ). This does not make the Book of Mormon superior to the Bible. The Bible on some doctrines is clearer than the Book of Mormon, such as the premortal existence of man and work for the dead.
When publishing all four of its canonized scriptures in one volume, the LDS Church always places the Bible first. In recent years the LDS Church has published greatly improved editions of all its scriptures including the Bible. In fact, in 1982, the Layman’s National Bible Committee presented to the LDS Church an award for “Outstanding Service to the Bible Cause,” in recognition of the new LDS edition of the King James Bible.
Page 110, lines 19-22
“4,000 changes had to be made in theBook of Mormon.”
Doesn’t every first edition have errors? All books typeset from handwritten manuscripts, as the Book of Mormon was, have many errors. Even with today’s advanced publishing methods, trained writers, proofreaders, ward processors, computer programs that correct spelling errors, first editions usually have more errors than later editions. But the Book of Mormon manuscript given to the printer was a longhand copy of a longhand copy. Evidently no proofreaders were used except what the printer did.
Ninety-nine percent of the original edition of the Book of Monnon has not been changed. Indeed, 4,000 changes seem amazingly few. Also, when one realizes the duress Joseph Smith worked under, with mobs frequently trying to get the plates, his printer being threatened, his having to move his residence more than once to avoid physical attack, having the first 116 pages of manuscript stolen and never retrieved, it is indeed amazing that such a monumental book could be produced in such a short time.
Ironically, dozens of new editions of the Bible have been brought forth, some deliberately changed almost word for word, with little criticism. Yet every change of the Book of Mormon has been minutely examined by Mormons and non-Mormons. Dozens of articles and books have been written on the subject of Book of Mormon changes and these changes have logical explanations and almost every change is trivial. It seems inconsistent for the authors to criticize the Book of Mormon that has but a small fraction of the number of changes that have been made in the Bible. (See page 110, line 30 to page 111, line 5 for one kind of change the authors think is significant.)
Elder Boyd K. Packer has commented on the Book of Mormon changes:
[Critics] cite these changes . . . as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them . . .. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony/or, not against, the truth of the book. (Ensign, May 1974, p. 94.)
As Dean Jessee has pointed out, “Every time the Book of Mormon comes under attack, it calls to our attention even more proof that Joseph Smith told the truth” (Ensign, September 1977, p. 95).
The Book of Mormon is undoubtedly one of the most scrutinized books in history. The results of that scrutiny point to its authenticity.
Page 110, lines 23-26
“These [Book of Mormon] corrections run all the way from those necessitated by changes in Joseph Smith’s beliefs to elimination of hundreds of obvious contradictions, absurdities, and childish grammatical errors.”
The book does not mention that almost every change is to correct the grammatical or spelling errors. Where is there evidence of “changes in Joseph Smith’s beliefs” and “hundreds of obvious contra- dictions”? (We will treat separately one alleged problem mentioned on page 110, line 30 to page 111, line 5.) There are grammatical errors in The God Makers, which I chose to ignore. (My response will certainly have errors in it, too.)
The correction of typographical errors and some clarification changes do not detract from the reality of the Book of Mormon. That certainly is true when one considers the eternal inspiring truths to be found in it, both those that are unique and those that offer clarification of religious principles found elsewhere (see “Overview” Section). When King Jehoiakim in the Bible burned the scriptures that Jeremiah had dictated, the prophet dictated them a second time, “and there were added besides unto them many like words” (Jer. 36:32). It is interesting to note that Ernest Hemingway rewrote The Old Man and the Sea forty times.
Page 110, lines 27-31
“After his initiation into the Masonic mysteries Joseph Smith repudiated and ridiculed the Trinity . . . and [taught] that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct gods.”
Joseph would have heard the anti-Trinitarian concept early in his life. Deists, who became Universalists and Unitarians, were anti-Trinitarians. Most of the founding fathers including Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Washington and Franklin were Deists. Joseph Smith’s grandfather was a Deist too.
Joseph Smith was undoubtedly reluctant to say much in the beginning against the Trinity; he had presented enough “new” ideas to defend without increasing the criticism heaped on him. Or Joseph may at first not have known that he was anti-Trinitarian. Trinitarianism means different things to different people.
But there is evidence that Joseph Smith mentioned the separation of the Godhead at least by 1835.[3] Joseph Smith said he always maintained the separateness of the Godhead (Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370). Yet the book without mentioning a date says it was “after his initiation into the Masonic mysteries.” Joseph Smith was not initiated into Masonry until March 15, 1842. His membership had nothing to do with his beliefs about the Trinity. Masons only teach that their members must believe in a supreme being and are neither pro- nor anti-Trinitarian. Since Masonic beliefs can be traced to Old Testament times, the Trinitarian idea is not even relevant to that fraternal organization. Many Masons do not claim to belong to a religion, and Masons are encouraged not to get involved in religious interpretation or controversies.
Page 110, line 30 to page 111, line 5
“[Rejecting the Trinity] required many ‘corrections’ to the Book of Mormon. First Nephi 13:40, for example, which read in the 1830 edition ‘. . . that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world’ was changed to read ‘that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.’ ” .
According to LDS doctrine, this is not a problem. To Latter-day Saints, it is appropriate to refer to the Savior as Christ the Eternal Father but this in no way makes Him the same as God the Eternal Father. To Latter-day Saints both Christ and God may be appropriately called Eternal Father: “Ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:18).
Thus the addition of “son of” to the phrase “Eternal Father” was a clarification that Christ was being referred to in I Nephi 13:40 and the other three examples cited in the authors’ note 41.
The authors claim that the “declaration in the introduction of the Book of Mormon that its purpose is to convince ‘Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God’ [was] . . . apparently overlooked and left unchanged.” The authors misinterpret the point, because in the introduction, Christ the Eternal God cannot be confused with Christ the Eternal Father. Both Christ and God are separate Gods to Latter-day Saints and a clarification was not necessary. In I Nephi 13:40 and the other verses cited, Joseph Smith apparently felt clarification would be needed. But this change is not related to a doctrinal change in the verses nor an accidental omission in the introduction.
It seems apparent that when the Book of Mormon or the Bible speaks of the three members of the Godhead as one, there is room for two interpretations. In the Bible, John 10:30, stating “I and my Father are one,” is a New Testament scripture, like some Book of Mormon passages, that could either refer to literal oneness (Trinitarian) or a oneness in purpose. When one reads all the biblical scriptures dealing with God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, one sees that they definitely favor an anti-Trinitarian interpretation, especially John 17:20-22 which states:
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. That they [the believers] all may be one) as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they [the believers] also may be one in us . . . that they may be one, even as we [God and Christ] are one.
Four Book of Mormon passages pointed out in the book do sound more like John 10:30 in the first edition and in subsequent editions they sound more like John 17:20-22. However, the doctrinal meaning is the same, and not different, as the authors charge, just as John 10:30 (“I and my Father are one”) and John 17:20-24 (“that they may be one, even as we are one”) must mean the same or the biblical doctrine would not be consistent.
There are other verses in the Book of Mormon besides the testimony of the three witnesses that speak of the oneness in purpose of the Godhead, that were left intact, which Joseph Smith apparently felt no need to change.
The authors are silent on other Book of Mormon passages which make clear the separate personalities of the Godhead and that have been that way since the first (1830) edition.
While Christ visited the Book of Mormon people in America, He said, “Always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 18:19).
Again while in America Christ said, “I pray . . . that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou. Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them” (3 Nephi 19:29).
In these passages the Book of Mormon is as explicit on separate beings as is John 17:20-22. Elsewhere the Book of Mormon passages sound more like John 10:30, but mean the same.
Thus we see that a major doctrinal point the authors claim was changed was not. It was a clarification.
Page 111, lines 7-9
The “seer stone” was used to translate the Book of Mormon.
See page 96, lines 19-35 for earlier discussion.
Page 111, lines 13-15
“However, the errors [in the Book of Mormon] numbered in the hundreds, and were exactly what one would expect from the pen of an imaginative but uneducated young man such as Joseph Smith,” say the authors.
See page 110, lines 19-22 and lines 23-26 for earlier discussion.
The reader will have to read the Book of Mormon himself to find if this is true. The eternal truths of the Book of Mormon come from a source with far greater ability than mere mortals. Charging Joseph Smith as uneducated only makes the case for a divine origin of the Book of Mormon more convincing.
Page 111, line 15 to page 112, line 9
“B. H. Roberts, eminent Mormon historian and General Authority of the Church, confessed in an unpublished manuscript that the evidence pointed compellingly to Joseph Smith as the [Book of Mormon’s] author. “
This resurrects an old charge against the LDS Church that has been leveled many times. The authors offer no documentation to verify this claim.
B. H. Roberts devoted his life to studying the Book of Mormon from every angle. He was undoubtedly one of the foremost defenders of the faith the LDS Church has ever had. As defender of the faith, Roberts sometimes took the role of “devil’s advocate” to encourage Church leaders to find answers to what some of the critics of the Book of Mormon were saying.
Since Elder Roberts had a very analytical mind, a letter in 1903 to Church President Joseph F. Smith asking “tough” questions about the Book of Mormon was referred to him. Both the letter and Roberts’ reply were published in the official LDS magazine [Improvement Era, 7 [1904]:180-182; also cited in “Defending the Keystone” by George D. Smith, Jr., Sunstone, May/June 1981, pp. 47-48).
Elder Roberts recognized that there were some questions difficult to handle and he wanted to find answers so that the LDS Church would have replies to critics when needed. One must keep in mind that many of the Book of Mormon expressions for which supportive evidences have come forth in the last fifty years were considered anachronisms in Roberts’ day.
On January 4 and 5, 1922, B. H. Roberts made a two-day oral presentation before the General Authorities “concerning some of the problems” (Truman Madsen, “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies, Summer 1979, p. 435).
Several General Authorities were assigned to find appropriate answers. “In March of 1922, Elder Roberts prepared a draft of a written report to the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve,” with “parallels” from Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews compared to the Book of Mormon (Ibid., p. 440).
B. H. Roberts made the following disclaimer about the report:
Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] . . . for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well as that which has been produced against it and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. (Ibid.)
Truman Madsen points out “the report was not intended to be balanced. [It was] a kind of lawyer’s brief of one side of a case written to stimulate discussion in preparation of the defense of a work already accepted as true” (Ibid., p. 441).
In support of this view in a letter addressed to Elder Richard R. Lyman of the Council of the Twelve, “Roberts expressed his desire to share the ‘parallels’ with the Twelve Apostles so as to prepare the brethren against future problems that might arise” (George D. Smith, Jr., “Defending the Keystone,” Sunstone, May/June 1981, p. 52).
The “devil’s advocate” method was often B. H. Roberts’ style. “He was known to turn the tables on young Mormon missionaries and represent the case ‘against’ with crisp skill. . . that tested their mettle.” Elder Roberts was criticized for this approach, but argued it was a good experience and “will open your eyes and deepen your understanding” (Truman Madsen, “B. H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon,” BYU Studies, Summer 1979, p. 439).
This approach—used to prepare the president of the United States for a press conference, to prepare a salesman to answer objections—is recognized as a legitimate technique for preparation. No one would consider such briefing papers to represent the position of the one who prepared such papers. Yet in The God Makers the authors have felt they could further truth and objectivity in this selective manner by using B. H. Roberts’ words without placing them in their proper context, even to the point of omitting the disclaimer statement. This tactic is used often by the authors.
Elder Roberts said in 1933 that he had “concluded Ethan Smith played no part in the formation of the Book of Mormon” (cited by Madsen, p. 441).
Authors Decker and Hunt could at least have quoted one of their favorite anti-Mormon writers who admitted, “It may never be proved that Joseph Smith saw Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon” (Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, p. 47).
In April 1928 on only one of the thirty occasions when he used the Tabernacle pulpit on this subject, B. H. Roberts read the poignant account of the reaction of the Nephites to the visit of Christ in America as recorded in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 27). Roberts then said:
Now, tell me in what church or cathedral in the world, in what sacred grove, in what place among the habitations of men will be found a more glorious Easter vision of the Christ than this? And the world would have lost this if it had not been for the Book of Mormon coming forth and there are a hundred more such glorious things that have come to the world in the book to enlighten the children of men.
He closed with a prayer, for on this level the paralytic influence of analysis gave .way to faith and its fulfillment. It was the praise of God that shone in him as he sang his song of praise. (Madsen, p. 443.)
B. H. Roberts had his problems with some Church leaders. He was chastized several times, once when he ran for the U. S. Congress without getting Church approval, which was expected of General Authorities. Elder Roberts won the election, but suffered the pain of never holding his seat when his peers in Congress refused to allow him to do so because he was a Latter-day Saint. If B. H. Roberts had wanted to turn against the LDS Church, he had every reason to.
Among readers who came to the Book of Mormon with hard, skeptical assumptions, B. H. Roberts is notable. He was capacitated by temperament and equipped by study for penetrating analysis. Moreover, at many junctures of his life he had profound personal reasons and emotional and spiritual stresses which might have led a man of lesser integrity to discard wholesale his religious heritage. (Madsen, p. 427.)
Madison U. Sowell pointed out that Elder “Roberts’ concern was ever that of defending, not destroying the faith” and charges that he lost his testimony are “denied by his family and existing evidence supports their denial” (“Defending the Keystone,” Sunstone, May/June 1981, pp. 51-52).
To exonerate B. H. Roberts is one thing, but did Joseph Smith have access to Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and, even if he did, would this mean that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon, as Decker and Hunt maintain?
View of the Hebrews was first published in 1823 and a second edition in 1825. This was during the time Joseph Smith received annual visits from the Angel Moroni, but before he received the plates in 1827. The first edition of View of the Hebrews was published seven years before the Book of Mormon. Some writers feel that Joseph Smith could have been influenced by the book and they point out such parallels as:
- Both books claim that some of the American Indians descended from Hebrews
- Savage tribes destroyed their civilized brethren in a final battle.
- In both accounts, sacred records, handed down from generation to generation, were buried in a hill and handed down later.
- Both books identify American Indians as the tribe of Joseph.
- Both books inform Americans that they should convert the Indians to their Hebraic scriptural heritage (see George D. Smith, “Defending the Keystone,” Sunstone, May/June 1981, pp. 46~7.)
Students of the Book of Mormon would agree that the parallels are generally true with slight modification as far as the Book of Mormon is concerned. Roberts pointed out other parallels such as lost books, Urim and Thummirn, and the many Isaiah quotes.
Some LDS views are as follows: There is no evidence that the LDS founder had seen View of the Hebrews and we have already pointed out that Fawn Brodie admitted “It may never be proved that Joseph Smith [had access to the Ethan Smith work].” Geographically it was of course possible that the Ethan Smith work could have been available to Joseph Smith. It would certainly have been normal for Joseph Smith to have read it had he heard about it. In fact in 1842 the LDS newspaper made an allusion to Ethan Smith as support for the validity of the Book of Mormon (Times and Seasons, June II, 1842, pp. 813-814).
Articles by Hugh Nibley in a two-part 1959 Improvement Era series said of some of the parallels, “Joseph Smith could more easily have found the material in the Bible” (Improvement Era, October 1959, p. 746).
What about the differences between the two works? In 1961 Ariel Crowley in About the Mormons (pp. 130-131) pointed out three significant differences:
The View of the Hebrews relates to biblical texts and secular and religious investigations into evidence supporting a particular interpretation of those texts, whereas the Book of Mormon is scripture, complete in itself. The View of the Hebrews relates primarily to a people lost in about the year 725 B.C. whereas the Book of Mormon relates to people never lost, but who migrated from Jerusalem a century and a quarter after the “lost tribes” were expelled. The View of the Hebrews is intended as a spur to induce Protestants to engage in proselyting Jews and Indians to Protestant Christianity by contributing to missionary organizations and welfare groups. The Book of Mormon has a purpose identical with the purpose of the Bible, i.e., attestation of the divinity of Christ and the preservation of the records of affairs and teachings in a theocratic system (Madison U. Sowell, “Defending the Keystone,” p. 53).
In 1964 Sidney Sperry pointed out other differences:
“Where in [Ethan] Smith’s book can be found of the atonement as distinctive as found in 2 Nephi 9:6-9? Where in Smith’s book can be found a treatment of the doctrine of an opposition in all things and the meaning of the fall such as in 2 Nephi 2:11-25? How could Joseph Smith possibly extract the ideas pertaining to Lehi’s dream of the tree, the river, and the rod of iron (I Nephi 8) from the View of the Hebrews ? Or where in this book could he possibly get the ideas found in Alma 32 pertaining to faith? Certainly Joseph Smith could not have found ideas in View of the Hebrews to compose what is said about the state of the soul between death and the resurrection in Alma 40:11-14. And is there anything comparable in Ethan Smith’s book to the dramatic three-day ministry of Jesus in 3 Nephi 11-26?” (Ibid.)
A 1971 master’s thesis by William L. Riley, “A Comparison of Passages from Isaiah and Other Old Testament Prophets in Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, ” definitely shows Joseph Smith “did not use Ethan Smith as a reference for Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon” (Ibid. p. 54).
Historian Richard L. Bushman has pointed out that View of the Hebrews has the lost tribes moving northward. The Book of Mormon has a small remnant of one tribe 125 years later moving south. View of the Hebrews has little to say about the history of the tribes in America, whereas the Book of Mormon says a great deal about its people including the visit of Christ. View of the Hebrews has America reserved for the tribes; the Book of Mormon speaks of the lost tribes scattered in other parts of the world. In View of the Hebrews the tribes are lost; in the Book of Mormon the Joseph remnant is not lost, but deliberately led to America. There are hardly any sermons of salvation in View of the Hebrews, whereas the Book of Mormon abounds in such material. View of the Hebrews admonished Christians to bring Christianity to the Jews and Indians. The Book of Mormon stated that “Indians, Jews and Christians” would be in a state of apostasy and a restoration would be needed. (Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, pp. 135-139.)
Recently scholars at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon studies have published an article called “View of the Hebrews: An Unparallel,” which points out many items used in View of the Hebrews to support the Hebraic origin of the American Indian. None of this information appears in the Book of Mormon. This study asks that if Joseph Smith had access to View of the Hebrews, why would he “have contradicted and ignored [it] at virtually every turn, if indeed he gave it basic credence?” (F.A.R.M.S. Update, October 1985, pp. 1-2).
The authors of The God Makers have ignored the facts in connection with parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews.
Page 112, lines 9-24
Now the book goes on to criticize the grammar and spelling in the Book of Mormon without admitting that the mistakes could have been made by the printer, the scribe, or those who wrote the plates, as well as Joseph Smith.
On the preceding page the authors told us Joseph Smith was uneducated. Today’s sophisticated highly trained newspaper writers, television and radio announcers make numerous grammatical mistakes every day. Relatively few educated Americans with high school, university and graduate degrees can write well.
God is infinite. Man (including Joseph Smith) is finite. Although God aided Joseph Smith with the thoughts on the plates, it was Joseph Smith’s responsibility to “study them out” and put the words into the best English he knew how.
The final author of the plates, Moroni, said, “If there be faults they be the faults of a man” (Mormon 8:17). And then Moroni warned his readers not to find fault with trivial matters.
Page 112, line 27
“[Using] his ‘peep stone’ . . . Joseph Smith. . . plagiarized several books about early America.”
So far the authors have mentioned only one possible book. View of the Hebrews. Why is there no documentation for the “others”?
If Joseph plagiarized, why did he need a “peep stone”? If Joseph Smith’s work is satanic, why did he have to plagiarize at all? Wouldn’t Satan reveal all the “lies” necessary?
Elsewhere (page III; 13-15) the authors say the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination. It is not consistent to say he made it up, and that he plagiarized it, and that it came from Satan. The authors break rules of logic in dealing with Joseph Smith.
Page 112, lines 29-30
“[Joseph Smith] copied entire chapters of the Bible land included them in the Book of Mormon.”
Why would the God of the whole world not give similar teachings to his children in both hemispheres? Why do the authors not mention that the Book of Mormon people who left Jerusalem brought with them the “brass plates”? These contained much of the sacred writings of the Old Testament up to that point (600 B.C.) and in some instances more. And why would not Book of Mormon prophets record from those loved older scriptures, and comment on for their own people, the passages they perceived as appropriate to their people’s needs?
Most of the Biblical quotes in the Book of Mormon came from the brass plates; the few others will be explained in connection with page 113. lines 1-9.
Page 112, lines 34-37
“Joseph Smith included, in portions of the Book of Mormon allegedly written in 600-500 B.C., hundreds of quotations from the New Testament.”
I am not aware of any New Testament quotes in the 600-500 B.C. time frame the authors cite. They give no examples. One can find parallels of similar phrases, but one can do this comparison with many literary works, especially when they deal with the same subject. The Book of Mormon people at this time were told a great deal about the coming of Christ, which their prophets learned about by visions and the “brass plates” which were brought from Jerusalem. Although the Old Testament also refers to the coming of Jesus, much of what the Book of Mormon people knew about Christ is at least not now available in the Old Testament. This is another reason why God would want “this second witness for Christ” (the Book of Mormon) to come forth.
Since the authors say Joseph Smith was “perhaps. . . too rushed, or else it didn’t occur to him to paraphrase when plagiarizing,” they are completely wrong in saying there are hundreds of quotations from the New Testament in the 600-500 B.C. section of the Book of Mormon period. Even if the time frame were broadened from 2000 B.C. to A.D. I, there is New Testament phraseology, but no New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon.
The “New Testament quotations” in the Book of Mormon came during or after Christ’s appearance in America to the Book of Mormon people.
Page 113, lines 1-9
“The hundreds of quotations from both the Old and New Testament [are not acknowledged as coming from Joseph Smith’s Bible but are represented] as though they came from the ‘Gold Plates.’ “
Neither the LDS Church nor Joseph Smith ever claimed that the Book of Mormon did not have passages similar to and even identical with biblical ones. In fact, for such verses in the Book of Mormon, chapter headings and footnotes invite the reader to compare the corresponding biblical verses.
The plates were written in an ancient language (called reformed Egyptian in the Book of Mormon) and the translator, Joseph Smith, put them into the best English of his day of which he was capable.
Wouldn’t any good translator put his translation into the vernacular of the people he was translating for? Isn’t a translation considered to be a poor one when it doesn’t use the word order, grammar or language that is currently in common usage? The vernacular for scripture in Joseph Smith’s day was the King James Bible. It is not known whether Joseph was actually told by the Lord the King James wording or whether there is another explanation. Possibly, when the scriptures to be translated were almost identical to those in the King James version, Joseph Smith opened up his Bible and whenever something was close to what these translators had said, he thought to himself, ‘That’s good enough for me.” Latter-day Saints don’t claim to know what happened. It would seem odd for Joseph Smith not to see what the King James translators said when he was covering similar ground on the plates. We do know that the Book of Mormon translation required studious effort on the part of the translator (D&C 9:8).
If Joseph Smith had such a “fertile imagination” as the authors suggest earlier, wouldn’t he have been smart enough to paraphrase more, as they suggest on the last two lines of page 112 he should have done? Or if Joseph Smith were perpetrating a fraud, as they claim, why would Joseph with a “fertile imagination” take anything from the Bible at all? He surely knew his work would be scrutinized. Joseph’s “fertile imagination” could just as likely have produced a book without a single biblical quote if he were involved in a hoax, rather than to copy a small fraction from the Bible. And if the Book of Mormon has satanic origins, then why didn’t the devil give a “nonplagiarized” account?
Joseph Smith simply translated biblical passages that were on the plates, not because he was running short on imagination; after all, over 93 percent of the Book of Mormon plates are not direct biblical quotes or paraphrases. A 100 percent non-biblical quoting book of scripture wouldn’t have been much harder to produce.
Why don’t the authors point out the remarkable differences in Christ’s great Sermon on the Mount that he delivered both by the Sea of Galilee and in America, the Book of Mormon account of which adds greater understanding to this great masterpiece?
Why don’t the authors point out that the main quotes from the Bible are from the Old Testament prophet Isaiah? Joseph Smith quotes 433 Isaiah verses of which 199 are word for word, but 234 are different than the King James version. One verse (2 Nephi 12:16) is not only different from the King James version but adds a completely new phrase: “And upon all the ships of the sea.” This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which had not been translated into English in Joseph Smith’s day.
All this information about the Book of Mormon is readily available, but has been ignored.
One fact remains—the Book of Mormon itself. It has to be explained in some way. At first, hearing about gold plates, angels, the voice of God, all sounds unbelievable. But on careful, thoughtful, sincere reflection and prayerful study of the Book of Mormon, any explanation different than the one Joseph Smith gave is beyond believability.
Page 113, lines 10-15
“How the Book of Mormon ‘Prophet’ Nephi who allegedly wrote 600 to 500 B.C. could. . . quote Matthew, Luke, Peter and Paul verbatim centuries before they wrote their gospels and epistles . . . seems to allow only one explanation: [fiction].”
Why aren’t examples given? This simply is not true.
There is a Book of Mormon passage in Moroni 7:44-45 that is very similar to Paul’s discourse on faith, hope and charity (that some Latter-day Saints have pointed out sounds like Paul) in I Cor. 13:4-8. This is not a problem for those who believe in the biblical principle of revelation, however, because God may inspire two individuals with a similar thought, or both Paul and Mormon may have been quoting an earlier common source. Since Mormon made this statement over three hundred years after Paul made it, both Paul and Mormon could have received the idea from the teachings of Christ, since not even a “hundredth part” of Christ’s total words he spoke to Book of Mormon people were recorded by Mormon in his abridgement (3 Nephi 26:6). For earlier remarks, see page 113, lines 1-9.
Page 113, lines 19-22
“In Alma 46:15, believers are called Christians in 73 B.C., whereas Acts 11:26 says they were first called Christians at Antioch about 42 A.D. “
Here we have an objection to the word “Christians” being used before the Savior was born. The Book of Mormon does claim these New World people anticipated and believed in Christ, so a nineteenth century translation in the vernacular would logically call them Christians. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 brought into the open evidence that Christ’s teachings existed before Christ was born in the Old World. The Book of Mormon also teaches of Christ in the New World.
Page 113, lines 21-33
“The title ‘Christ’ is used in the Book of Mormon without explanation why Jews living in the Americas would use this Greek word instead of the Hebrew word ‘Messiah.’ “
The word “Christ” is English and derived from the Greek and no one knows what the word was in the original Book of Mormon reformed Egyptian, so why the fuss? A good translator uses words that are in use in his present environment. Just as the claim is made that Mormons today are not Christians, now there is objection that there were Christians in the early part of the Book of Mormon. See page 113, lines 19-22 for previous commentary.
Actually the Book of Mormon uses both the terms “Messiah” and “Christ.” In LDS theology “Christ” and “Messiah” are one and the same, thus logically permitting the usage of both titles.
Page 113, lines 24-26
“Bees are said to be in America about 2000 B.C. in Ether 2:3, yet they were first brought to the New World by the Spanish explorers.”
The Spanish, of course, came in the sixteenth century A.D., some 3500 years later. To presume to know that there were no bees in the Americas four thousand years ago is more than scientists are willing to say. After reading several articles on the subject, the consensus seems to be that bees are universally found except in polar regions.
Page 113, lines 29-31
The authors are critical that it took the emigrants from the Old World 344 days to cross the Atlantic.
Are they equally critical of the children of Israel taking forty years to travel a distance of less than 200 miles across the Sinai?
Furthermore, how do the authors know these people are supposed to have crossed the Atlantic when the Book of Mormon gives no modern geography?
Page 113, lines 32-35
“The absurdities, incongruities, anachronisms and contradictions are too numerous to list here,” the authors generalize.
The purpose of The God Makers is to debunk Mormonism. It is illogical that the authors should say they do not have room to achieve their basic goal if the opportunity exists, when they have room to repeat the same charges numerous times.
Page 113, last line to page 114, line 19
“[LDS doctrine includes much more than the Book of Mormon which is supposed to contain] the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”
Not all gospel doctrines are found in the Book of Mormon. “Gospel” of course means “good news,” the good news that Jesus Christ was born, showed us the way, overcame death, and He lives. The Book of Mormon agrees with this good news about Jesus Christ. Knowledge of Jesus Christ embodies all gospel principles. All the necessary doctrines of redemption are in the Book of Mormon. For the “fulness of the gospel” to mean every point of doctrine was restored at one time is not the meaning. Latter-day Saints do believe that some Book of Mormon people had the fulness of the Gospel, but since “only a hundredth part” of what Jesus taught was recorded on the Book ol Mormon plates and “greater things” were deliberately withheld till a still future date (3 Nephi 26:6, 9), this could explain some doctrinal omissions in what we have in the Book of Mormon.
Following is a list of doctrines the authors feel were added to LDS theology that are not in the Book of Mormon. The reader will note that some of the teachings are found in the Book of Mormon; others aren’t even LDS doctrine at all and thus should not be in the Book of Mormon. There is the possibility that some of the LDS doctrines not in the Book of Mormon as we have it today were on the 116-page part of the manuscript that was lost. Some teachings might have been on the “sealed plates” Joseph Smith did not translate.
The book’s allegations |
The facts |
| 1. “God was once sinful” | Not LDS doctrine. |
| 2. “Three Degrees of Glory | Not in the Book of Mormon, but at least it is partially biblical (I Cor. 15:40-41). |
| 3. A “Mrs. God” | Not in the Book of Mormon, but could it be that the LDS belief that we have a father and mother in heaven was ahead of the Women’s Liberation movement? |
| 4. “No hell or eternal punishment” | Absolutely false. The Book of Mormon dozens of times teaches that there is hell and punishment. Even the less harsh modification of hell is found in the Book of Mormon (I Nephi 15:29; 2 Nephi 28:15; Alma 26:13). |
| 5. “A premortal state” | The Book of Mormon only suggests this, but not as much as the Bible (Hel. 14:17 and Ether 3:16). |
| 6. “No creation” | Not true. The Book of Mormon reiterates the biblical creation story more than once. For example, 2 Nephi chapter 2 |
| 7. “No creator” | Not true. “The Lord hath created the earth . . . and . . . his children” (I Nephi 17:36). |
| 8. “Marriage for eternity” | The Book of Mormon, as does the Bible, hints at this when it says “Whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven” (Hel. 10:7). |
| 9. “Only polygamists become Gods” | This is not the Church position. The Book of Mormon teaches that monogamy is the rule, unless God for a special purpose commands plurality of wives. This agrees with the position of the Church that plural marriage is not essential as a step to godhood (Jacob 2:28-30). |
| 10. Church offices | Some are mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the Bible (Alma 4:7; Jacob 1:18; Mosiah 23:17; Alma 4:4; Moroni 3). |
| 11. “Baptism for the dead, etc. | The principles of work for the dead are quoted in Malachi 3 and 4 and in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 24 and 25). |
Page 114, lines 30-32
“The Mormon Church is therefore in the uncomfortable position of having to take seriously the childish, naive and contradictory content of the Book of Mormon.”
To the extent that the authors see the Book of Mormon as an embarrassment to the Church this contradicts the charge on page 110, lines 17-19 that Latter-day Saints hold the Book of Mormon in higher esteem than the Bible. Having taught the Book of Mormon over a period of twenty-five years, I feel that, along with the Bible, it is truly one of the greatest works of all time.
Serious-minded Latter-day Saints love and cherish this scripture of ancient America. See “Overview” Section XIII for some choice passages and concepts.
Page 114, line 30 to page 115, line 13 176
This section of the book repeats numerous charges that have been challenged earlier.
Charges repeated by the book |
Correct LDS view |
| 1. “The Book of Mormon contains almost no Mormonism.” | Much LDS doctrine comes from the Book of Mormon. See remarks in connection with page 113, last line. |
| 2. The Book of Mormon does not contain the “fulness of the gospel. “ | The Book of Mormon has the “fulness of the gospel.” See response page 113, last line. |
| 3. Joseph Smith was an amateur fortune-teller. | Joseph Smith became a prophet. See commentary page 103, line 16. |
| 4. Mormonism is a cheap scam. | Mormonism is the restored gospel of Christ. See page 103, line 16 remarks. |
| 5. The Book of Mormon has absurdities, contradictions and complete lack of archaeological evidence. | For opposite view see commentary with page 86, line 30. |
Page 115, lines 7-9
“[The counsel to pray for the Spirit’s confirmation of the truth of the Book of Mormon] sidesteps facts and substitutes feelings.”
How can the book say this when the Book of Mormon’s very existence is an indisputable fact? Missionaries teach that if one will read, ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon, one will be entitled to a confirmation from God. This is combining fact with feeling, not sidetracking “facts and substituting feeling” as The God Makers says. Isn’t the authors’ belief that one has achieved a guarantee of eternal life merely a strong feeling? Although its origin may be disputed, the Book of Mormon is a fact.
Page 115, lines 14-19
“The most important part of Mormonism—its very heart—which we will reveal, has been so secret that the inner circle of Mormon elite who practice it must swear oaths to forfeit their lives rather than reveal it.”
The most important part of Mormonism, “its very heart,” is living the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. The main purpose of the temple ceremony is to inform, remind and motivate. None of this “heart of Mormonism” as portrayed in the temple—LDS doctrines and membership requirements—is secret; it is readily found in biblical and modern LDS scriptures, in Church lesson manuals, and in speeches and writings of Church leaders. Nor is the temple ceremony confined in any way to an “elite” group—hundreds of thousands participate annually, and all are invited who sincerely want to serve the Lord and are willing to meet his requirements.
(For an earlier discussion of the temple covenants, see page 13, lines 16-18.)
Page 115, lines 21-24
“These ‘keys’ to ‘godhood’ are not unique to Mormonism as most Mormons imagine. They have been the stock-in-trade of numerous secret occult societies for centuries.”
The Mormon concept, which most Mormons do know, is that God’s church and priesthood were on the earth from the beginning with Adam and Eve, and were restored during various historic dispensations following periods of apostasy. This of course is an explanation of why there are traces of similar teachings in various other groups throughout history. (See page 60, line 14 for additional discussion.) Latter-day Saints agree with the authors to the extent that satanic and/or man-made changes are part of many rituals found throughout the world.
Mormonism recognizes the various versions of Christianity as embodying varying degrees of truth, but also elements of truth are found in other world religions; and to some extent some truths may be found in what are sometimes called the occult groups. Occult groups, however, are far from being all the same, just as the mainstream religions are not alike.
The authors err in saying Mormon temple rituals are the same as those in occult groups. For example, the LDS concept of the role of ritual in its church is different than the role of ritual in other groups. LDS ritual must never become an end unto itself. (See page 34, lines 3-7 and page 63, line 4 for a discussion of LDS ritual.)
The LDS Church is unique, claiming to be a restoration “of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21), and recognizes that elements of gospel truth are found in major and minor religions of the world. Latter-day Saints definitely have, however, more in common with other versions of Christianity than with other religions of the world.
[1] In 1843, at Kinderhook, Illinois, six plates were found which supposedly were written in ancient hieroglyphics which Joseph Smith reportedly declared authentic. Later some claimed the plates to be a hoax, thus condemning the LDS prophet.
[2] A medallion in Masonry that is supposed to produce extraordinary effects
[3] The 1832 account is the earliest known recital of the First Vision. (See Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision, p. 157). It was in part dictated by the Prophet Joseph Smith to a scribe and in part is in Joseph’s own handwriting. Even in this account Joseph Smith only said the Lord came to him, perhaps realizing that to say more would bring more persecution than he already had. In 1835 Joseph related his “first vision” to a visitor in Kirtland, a man named Matthias. This account speaks of two heavenly visitors. The third known account dictated by Joseph Smith appears in the Pearl of Great 162 Price (Joseph Smith—History). This account also speaks of God and Christ (Ibid., p. 160)
