Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

Most people have Mormon friends or have been in the church themselves, and I think what is widely perceived is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is just another denomination of Christianity.  After all, Jesus is in the name of their church, how could they not be?  First, I’ll go through the fundamental differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism.  However, the main reason I am writing this is because I believe Mormonism, on a purely evidential basis, to be false.  I believe the Book of Mormon was not divinely inspired, and Joseph Smith was a false prophet.  I hope no one will take offense to that without first reading why I have this position.

My first point is Mormonism is fundamentally different from Christianity.  Merely because the Mormon church’s official name is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” does not make it Christian.  It is a religion’s beliefs that are its foundation — not its name.  In fact, Mormonism differs from Christianity in two very central issues to each doctrine: 1) How are we saved/what happens after we die?  and 2) Who is Jesus?

How are we saved/what happens after we die?

Mormonism’s answer: Depending on the life one lives, there are 4 different possibilities for what happens after you die.  The best you can hope for is to become a god yourself, but that only happens if you have been completely cleansed of sin and lived a life full of good works.

There are three main kingdoms of Heaven according to LDS doctrine:

1. The Celestial kingdom is for those who accepted Jesus, received the necessary ordinances (such as baptism), and followed the commandments.  This level is divided — and the upper half consists of the people who will become gods themselves because of the greatness of their works.

2. The Terrestrial kingdom is for those who lived good lives but did not accept Jesus in their lifetimes.

3. Lastly, the Telestial kingdom is for those who did not accept Jesus nor live good lives.

The only people who go to Hell are the really wicked people — we’re talking like a Cain or a Judas here.  Hell, called “outer darkness,” is really not an option for most of humanity.

Take this excerpt from an article on the LDS doctrine of salvation (reformatted for simplicity’s sake here, all emphases in original source):

Salvation, according to Mormonism, can mean many things.  LDS doctrinal authority Bruce R. McConkie, for many years one of the 12 “apostles” of the Mormon Church, taught that there are three distinct categories of salvation.  In his highly respected book, Mormon Doctrine, McConkie wrote:

1. Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected.  In this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality; … [this] salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition …

But this is not the salvation of righteousness, the salvation which the saints seek.  Those who gain only this general or unconditional salvation will still be judged according to their works and receive their places in a terrestrial or a telestial kingdom.  They will, therefore, be damned; their eternal progression will be cut short; they will not fill the full measure of their creation, but in eternity will be ministering servants to more worthy persons.

2. Conditional or individual salvation, that which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience, consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God.  This kind of salvation follows faith, repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one’s mortal probation. (D. & C. 20:29; 2 Ne. 9:23-24.) … [D. & C. = Doctrine & Covenants, one of the books considered to be Mormon Scripture; 2 Ne. = 2 Nephi, one of the books contained in the Book of Mormon.]

Even those in the celestial kingdom, however, who do not go on to exaltation, will have immortality only and not eternal life.  Along with those of the telestial and terrestrial worlds they will be “ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.”  They will live “separately and singly” in an unmarried state “without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity” (D. & C. 132:16-17).

3. Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom.  With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak.  It is the salvation which the saints seek.  It is of this which the Lord says, “There is no gift greater than the gift of salvation” (D. & C. 6:13).  This full salvation is obtained in and through the continuation of the family unit in eternity, and those who obtain it are gods (D. & C. 131:1-4; 132).  (Article by Dave Johnson, “The Mormon View of Salvation.”)

Christianity’s answer: There are only two possibilities for the afterlife: Heaven or Hell.  The only way to get to Heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ.  “Salvation” and “eternal life” have the same meaning because there is only one Heaven.  “Whoever believes in Him [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only begotten Son” (John 3:18).  “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

These verses make it very clear that unless one has faith in Christ as the one who made it possible to be right with God, he will not enter Heaven — in fact, he will be eternally condemned to Hell.  This stands opposite to Mormon teaching, which states that even if one does not accept Christ he can still avoid Hell and even go to Heaven, if only the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms.

There is also a faith versus good works issue here.  Christians believe we are saved by grace through faith: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8).  It is clear from the passages from Mormon doctrine above that in order to receive full and individual salvation, much more than faith is required.  This idea one can ascend to godhood through a combination of good works and baptism is central to the next point of disagreement between Mormons and Christians — the person of Jesus Christ.

Who is Jesus?

Mormonism’s answer: There was no true virgin birth — Jesus is the human child of Mary and God the Father.  “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action.  He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).  “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, p. 547).

To support their view of Jesus being the physically conceived son of God, Mormons appeal to John 3:16, which states Jesus is the “only begotten.”  The Greek word used there is monogenes, which means “unique” or “one of a kind.”  It does not mean “procreated,” but emphasizes “uniqueness.”

Mormons also appeal to Colossians 1:15, which calls Christ the “Firstborn over all creation.”  The Greek word for firstborn is prototokos, meaning “first in rank, preeminent one.”  It carries the idea of positional supremacy.  Christ is the firstborn in the sense He is preeminent over all creation.  Also, Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Book of Mormon, Alma 7:9, 10) and is of the Tribe of Benjamin.

Jesus is not eternally God — He started out as a human, and through His good works, ascended into godhood, or attained the state of exaltation.  He is the physical first-born spirit child of God the Father, who was also once a mere human.

Central to Mormon doctrine is the idea God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not just three persons but three different Gods altogether, therefore claiming the Christian doctrine of the “three-in-one” trinity as heretical.  “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-46, emphasis added).  Also, Jesus practiced polygamy (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 259).

There was nothing special about Jesus (as in, He was not divine to begin with) other than that He did enough good works to ascend into godhood.

Christianity’s answer: Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23).  “According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, of the Davidic, kingly line of Judah (Matthew 2:1, Hebrews 7:14).  Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5).  Jesus is a descendant of David, a Bethlehemite (Matthew 1:6, 1 Samuel 16:1).  Several other verses refer to Jesus as ‘Son of David’ (Matthew 15:22, 21:9; Mark 10:47).  The line of King was through the Tribe of Judah and not Benjamin (Genesis 49:9-10)” (Christian Apologetics & Research Industry).

Jesus was born in Bethlehem and is of the Tribe of David.  Jesus is God incarnate.  “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God … All things were made by him … He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not …  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:1, 3, 10, 14).  “I [Jesus] and my Father are one” (John 10:30).  “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (1 John 5:7, emphases added).  The last verse also supports the doctrine of the trinity that Mormons reject.  Lastly, according to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives.

It can be seen the Book of Mormon and the Bible contradict on central issues.  It is for this reason Mormons must accept the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly — “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly…” (8^th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church).  These differences are at the core of each religion — issues such as the nature of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the afterlife are doctrinal essentials.

It is interesting that for most of Mormon history, their church refused to be equated with the mainstream Christian church: “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10).  “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.…  I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; … their creeds were an abomination in his sight” (Pearl of Great Price, “Joseph Smith — History” 1:18, 19).  However, it makes sense for Mormons to insist nowadays they are Christians.  It is easier to obtain converts if those converts from Christian denominations are unsuspecting of the true nature of Mormonism.

It is clear that since Mormonism and Christianity differ on the most significant and foundational ideas of their respective faiths they cannot be one and the same.  In fact, either one is true and the other is false, or they are both false.  If Mormonism is true, then Biblical Christianity is a lie, but if Biblical Christianity is true, then Mormonism is a lie.

Now, once it is understood that Mormonism and Christianity cannot both be true, the real task of showing Mormonism false begins.  Note that if Mormonism is false, that has no effect on the truth of Christianity.

Mormons are part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, meaning they believe in another prophet of God — a man named Joseph Smith.  A man living in the early 19^th century in Palmyra, New York, he claims to have received a revelation from God written on golden plates.  It is his translation of these plates that we know today as the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith’s background, trustworthiness, and character must be examined in order to support the truth or falsehood of his famous claims.  The first question needing to be addressed with regard to Mormonism is “Did Joseph Smith stand to gain by making this all up?”  Of course, even if he did, that in itself is not nearly enough to disprove Mormonism — but it is just one piece of circumstantial evidence which can be used in this argument.

There are usually three main motives detectives look for when building a case against someone: sexual lust, financial gain, and power.  If someone stood to gain one or more of those by committing whatever crime, the case against him strengthens.  Did Joseph Smith stand to gain any of these three?  The answer is yes — he stood to gain in all three of these areas.

1) Sexual lust: Joseph Smith gained through justifying his polygamy.  He had 30 wives, many of whom were underage — but if he could prove polygamy was a holy practice condoned by God, there would be no problem.

[I]f any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.  And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.  For they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment (Doctrine & Covenants 132:61-62, emphases added).

Note Smith justifies polygamy in so far as it helps reproduce more spirit-children for God.  However, take this quotation from historian Todd Compton, a faithful LDS member himself:

In the group of Smith’s well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him.  Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old.  Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith’s own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty.  In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group aged fifty-one to sixty….  The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy were an attempt to care for older, unattached women.  These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy… (emphasis added).

One of Joseph Smith’s own followers pointed out that Smith may have had an ulterior motive for including the doctrine of polygamy in his translation of the golden plates.

2) Financial gain: Joseph Smith also gained financially from sharing about his revelation with God in the Book of Mormon.  He claimed God told him to start a bank that, as is shown in the quotation below, would be the best there ever was.

Warren Parrish, who had been an officer in the bank and had apostatized from the Church, made this statement: “I have listened to him [i.e., Smith] with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the audible voice of God, instructed him to establish a banking/anti-banking institution, who like Aaron’s rod shall swallow up all other banks (the Bank of Monroe excepted) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins” (Painesville Republican, February 22, 1838, qtd.  in Conflict at Kirtland, p. 297, cited from Mormon Shadow or Reality? p. 531).

The fate of that institution is worth noting: “ … The bank failed.  This affected Joseph’s status.  People who were convinced that Joseph had intended a swindle at the outset attacked him verbally and threatened him physically.  This disruption forced Joseph to leave the city frequently….  In April 1837 Joseph went into hiding without seeing Emma [his wife] before he left” (Mormon Enigma, p. 62).

3) Power: Joseph Smith claimed to be the singular spokesperson for God Himself — talk about influence!  His followers of that time called him “King of the Kingdom of God.”  He also ran in the 1844 Presidential race but died before the race was over.  (It is also noteworthy that he predicted America would fall within a couple of years of around 1843, and that didn’t happen.)

There certainly stood much to be gained if Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon himself.  Again, even if he had a motive, that fact alone does not prove Mormonism false.  However, this is just the beginning of the case against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  To better understand the Mormon faith, we must next examine the environment in which it arose.

Joseph Smith was born in Vermont in 1805 but at the age of about 10 moved to the city of Palmyra, New York, around which Mormonism originated.  It is significant that this is one of the areas most affected by the 2^nd Great Awakening, which began in 1800 but really took off in 1820.  This awakening was a time of spiritual revival in which church membership soared.  Heightened emotion was no doubt a part of this, and it gave rise to many new religious groups.  The problem with this was people who had made decisions to convert out of mere emotion did not make for long-lasting converts, and the church seemed more interested in short-term revival than long-term discipleship.  There was little guidance for these new converts after the revivals, and this is perhaps what led to so many new groups being created.  Some of these new churches were the Seventh-day Adventists from which we have the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Evangelical Christian Church of Canada, Christian Church of Disciples of Christ, and, of course, Mormonism.

These new churches, like Mormonism, hold beliefs that seem similar at first, but when truly examined have fundamental differences.  Many, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, claimed to be the “restoration of Christianity” and the “one true church.”  All of these spin-offs on Christianity emerged around the same time, around the same place, in response to and as a result of the 2^nd Great Awakening.  Certainly, this does not necessarily prove Mormonism false; at this point perhaps only a hint of suspicion is warranted.

Now we have to look at the character of Joseph Smith.  Was he the humble, uneducated, virtuous and sincere man Mormonism depends on him to be?  Was he inexperienced in treasure digging, making the discovery of the golden plates more miraculous?  If he was a man of great moral standing, this would make the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon more believable.  However, the evidence points in the opposite direction — that which causes more doubt to be cast on the validity of the Mormon scriptures.

The first point needing to be established is that Joseph Smith was by no means aimless — he worked as a local treasure digger near Palmyra, and even assisted others with finding treasure.  Smith operated using a “seer stone,” a magical stone he claimed to use to find treasure.  He claimed to see ghosts and spirits, as well as jewels through it, and learned its use from a local magician.

Once, two men hired Smith to find treasure for them — Josiah Stole and Isaac Hale (whose daughter Emma soon became Smith’s wife).  He never found the treasure he had been hired to find, and his employers eventually became tired of waiting.  We see from this quotation not only did he not accomplish the task of finding treasure, but he was arrested for fraud:

In late 1825 a wealthy Pennsylvania farmer named Josiah Stowell (sometimes spelled Stoal) came 150 miles to hire Smith because of Smith’s reputation.  Smith was hired to help Stowell locate a supposed old Spanish silver mine on Stowell’s farm.  During this time two significant things happened.  First, Smith met his future wife, Emma Hale, and in later interviews her father explained how he didn’t like Joseph Smith when he first met him because Smith was a money-digger, and Mr. Hale didn’t want any criminals marrying his daughter!  Perhaps even more damaging, however, was the fact that Smith was tried and convicted in court in March 1826 for “glass-looking.”  The charge had been brought up by Stowell’s nephew, who saw through the con that his uncle didn’t.  Mormon historians now acknowledge that this trial happened and that Smith was convicted on this charge….  [Of significance] are the affidavits and statements made by a number of Smith’s neighbors in Palmyra, about Smith’s lifestyle in the 1820’s.  Several neighbors have stated that Joseph Smiths Senior and Junior were both money-diggers, and that Jr. (i.e., the Mormon founder) was particularly good at it and was the head of a group of money-diggers (History of the Church, vol. 1, chapter 2, emphases added).

Peter Ingersoll (family neighbor and friend of Joseph Smith) Affidavit, Palmyra, Wayne County. N. Y. Dec. 2, 1833 (emphases added):

In the month of August, 1827, I was hired by Joseph Smith, Jr. to go to Pennsylvania, to move his wife’s household furniture up to Manchester, where his wife then was.  When we arrived at Mr. Hale’s, in Harmony, PA. from which place he had taken his wife, a scene presented itself, truly affecting.  His father-in-law (Mr. Hale) addressed Joseph, in a flood of tears: “You have stolen my daughter and married her.  I had much rather have followed her to her grave.  You spend your time in digging for money — pretend to see in a stone, and thus try to deceive people.”  Joseph wept, and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false.  He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones.

Smith admits all his accounts from the seer stone were false.  That will become very significant once we discuss how he translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon.

A closing quotation summarizes Smith’s character: “We have not only testimony impeaching the moral characters of the Smith family, but we show by the witnesses, that they told contradictory stories, from time to time, in relation to their finding the plates, and other circumstances attending it, which go clearly to show that none of them had the fear of God before their eyes, but were moved and instigated by the devil” (Mormonism Unveiled, p. 232).

It is clear from these quotations from the Mormons’ own church history as well as eyewitness accounts that Joseph Smith was less than virtuous.  He was arrested while doing what he claimed to do to find the Book of Mormon.  Smith was still involved in fraud when he was making discoveries about the golden plates.  Which is more likely: that he was a true prophet of God, or a charlatan?

Now for the important discussion of how the golden plates were translated.  While many paintings and pictures in Mormon visitor centers depict a prayerful Smith concentrating on the plates, many eyewitnesses admit Smith used only his seer stone and a hat for this translation.  Take this excerpt from Mormonism Research Ministry’s article, “A Seer Stone and a Hat: ‘Translating’ the Book of Mormon” (slightly reformatted for our purposes here):

“In his Comprehensive History of the Church (CHC), LDS historian and Seventy Brigham H. Roberts quotes Martin Harris, one of the three witnesses whose name is found in every edition of the Book of Mormon since its original edition.  Harris said that the seer stone Smith possessed was a ‘chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum.’  Harris went on to say it was by using this stone that ‘Joseph was able to translate the characters engraved on the plates’ (CHC 1:129).

“Martin Harris was one of the scribes Joseph Smith used to record the writing on the plates.  This enabled him to give a first-hand account of how Smith performed this translation.  Harris noted, ‘By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say “written”; and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraved on the plates, precisely in the language then used’ (CHC 1:29).

“Harris’s description concurs with that of David Whitmer, another one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon.  Whitmer details exactly how the stone produced the English interpretation.  On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated.  Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine.  A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English.  Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.  Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.

Robert N. Hullinger, in his book Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism, cites a personal interview….  [He writes,] ‘Smith’s wife Emma supported Harris’s and Whitmer’s versions of the story in recalling that her husband buried his face in his hat while she was serving as his scribe.’”

We see the plates were simply not used in the translation process whatsoever.  In fact, Smith refused to let anyone see the plates and even hid them in the woods for safe keeping.  He relied entirely on the “revelation from God” he received through the seer stone.  Remember that he previously admitted he could never see through the stone and hence he himself invalidates the Book of Mormon’s claim to divinity!

Another point is the way Smith described the golden plates would have made them over 200 pounds.  According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon was “engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin….  The volume was something near six inches in thickness…” (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, 3:9, March 1, 1842, 707).  “[T]his mass of gold plates, as they were not so compactly pressed as boxed tin, would have weighed nearly 200 lbs.” (John Hyde, Mormonism, Its Leaders).  This casts more doubt on the supposed fact of him carrying them while running from captors through the woods toward his house.

The plates were secreted about three miles from home…Joseph, on coming to them, took them from their secret place, and wrapping them in his linen frock, placed them under his arm and started for home….  After proceeding a short distance, he thought it would be more safe to leave the road and go through the woods.  Traveling some distance after he left the road, he came to a large windfall, and as he was jumping over a log, a man sprang up from behind it, and gave him a heavy blow with a gun.  Joseph turned around and knocked him down, then ran at the top of his speed.  About half a mile further he was attacked again in the same manner as before; he knocked this man down in like manner as the former, and ran on again; and before he reached home he was assaulted the third time.  In striking the last one he dislocated his thumb, which, however, he did not notice until he came within sight of the house, when he threw himself down in the corner of the fence in order to recover his breath.  As soon as he was able, he arose and came to the house (Lucy Mack Smith, mother of Joseph Smith, in Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 1853, p. 104-105; reprinted by Bookcraft Publishers in 1956 under the title History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, p. 107-108).

Mormon apologists maintain that critics’ calculations are wrong, that the plates were truly only 50-60 pounds.  Even if this is true, it is still highly unlikely that anyone could run 3 miles with 50-pound golden plates while escaping from and assaulting various attackers, as well as dislocating his thumb on the way.

Certainly, if Joseph Smith is telling the truth here, God could have performed a miracle and given Smith the strength to carry these plates.  This piece of evidence cannot be laid out on its own, only on top of other pieces, to establish the unlikelihood of Smith being able to carry these plates without divine intervention.  The reason I add this piece of evidence is not to say it was impossible for Smith to have carried these plates, but to say without the divine access Smith claimed to be connected with, (and indeed my task is to prove that divine access less and less likely) it would have been physically impossible for him to carry these plates.

However, I’m afraid this is only the beginning of the troubles with the inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon.  There are three main eye-witnesses mentioned in every copy of the Book of Mormon: Oliver Cauldry, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris.  Credible eyewitnesses add believability, so it is important to examine these witnesses and their real relationship to Mormonism.  History has proved these witnesses unreliable: first, Oliver Cauldry was later excommunicated from the LDS church because of the fact he publicly renounced the faith.  He even described Smith as “a leader of scoundrels of the deepest degree.”  This does not sound like a very faithful eyewitness!  David Whitmer was also later excommunicated from the LDS church — he claimed to see the golden plates “through the eye of faith,” yet kept changing his story.  Martin Harris was perhaps the most faithful of the three, as he was technically excommunicated, but it was never official.  The point is these three weren’t exactly the loyal witnesses the LDS church paints them to be.

After realizing his witnesses weren’t really going to do him any good, Joseph Smith grouped 8 other people to show them the plates and have them sign saying they had seen them.  All 8 of these people were either Joseph Smith’s or David Whitmer’s close relatives.  The five from Whitmer’s family eventually were excommunicated, and it turns out the only witnesses who stayed faithful were Joseph Smith’s father and two brothers.  Though it is true these three never recanted their testimony, “in 1838 a former Mormon leader, Stephen Burnett, claimed Martin Harris had told him that ‘the eight witnesses never saw [the plates] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it’” (“Facts On The Book Of Mormon Witnesses”).

If we are serious with ourselves when we look at the evidence, there are no credible testimonies that affirm the Book of Mormon as a divine book, or even that the golden plates existed.

Another instance worth noting was during the translation process when Martin Harris asked permission to take some pages home to show his skeptical wife Lucy.  Eventually, this was allowed, and the pages were never returned.  It is widely believed Martin’s wife burned them.  The reasoning behind this is if God was the source of the translation, re-translating the plates word-for-word for the 116 pages that were stolen would be an easy feat.  Joseph Smith was very distraught upon hearing the news about the pages, but then reports another revelation from God.

He was told that he should not retranslate those lost pages because Satan’s cunning plan was to have evil men alter the words in the original translation and wait until Joseph retranslated those pages.  The evil men would then produce the original lost 116 pages with the alterations to prove that Joseph was a fraud.  God, of course, knew of Satan’s eventual plan and had Nephi make two sets of plates that cover essentially the same material but written a little differently.  Joseph was instructed to now translate from the smaller, abridged plates of Nephi, instead of from the larger plates of Nephi that he had translated from earlier.  This way the same basic information that should be included in the Book of Mormon was there, but it would not be expected to match exactly the original lost 116 pages that were first translated by Joseph (Mormonthink.com, “The Lost 116 Pages of the Book of Mormon”).

If this is true, then God, foreseeing that the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon would be stolen, told the ancient prophet Nephi (500-400bc we’re talking) to make two copies of the same plates of information (one with many details and one vaguer).  If not, then Joseph Smith simply had to re-fabricate the story and didn’t include as many details the second time because he was afraid if the lost pages were somehow recovered and he had misremembered its details, he would be called out as a false prophet.  Ask yourself: with the new knowledge of Joseph Smith’s character, and lack of any credible witnesses to attest to his work, which is more likely?

However, there is still more evidence proving the incredulous nature of the Book of Mormon.  Perhaps it will be helpful to begin with a swift summarization of the events recorded in it.  The Book of Mormon is an account of Jesus visiting and interacting with two fighting groups of Native Americans, the Lamanites and the Nephites.  A more detailed account follows:

[The Book of Mormon] tells the story of a man named Lehi, his family, and several others as they are led by God from Jerusalem shortly before the fall of that city to the Babylonians in 586BC.  The book describes their journey across the Arabian peninsula, and then to the promised land, the Americas, by ship.  These books recount the group’s dealings from approximately 600BC to about 130BC, during which time the community grew and split into two main groups, which are called the Nephites and the Lamanites, that frequently warred with each other…  The book of 3 Nephi is of particular importance within the Book of Mormon because it contains an account of a visit by Jesus from heaven to the Americas sometime after his resurrection and ascension.  The text says that during this American visit, he repeated much of the same doctrine and instruction given in the Gospels of the Bible and he established an enlightened, peaceful society which endured for several generations, but which eventually broke into warring factions again…  The book of Mormon is an account of the events during Mormon’s [a prophet-historian and narrator of the entire Book of Mormon] life…  The Book of Moroni [the final book] then details the final destruction of the Nephites and the idolatrous state of the remaining society.  It mentions a few spiritual insights and some important doctrinal teachings, then closes with Moroni’s testimony and an invitation to pray to God for a confirmation of the truthfulness of the account” (Book of Mormon Chronology Chart).

The first point to make about the translation Joseph Smith completed is it is in the formal King James Version style.  For the time period in which he lived, many terms used in 17^th-century England were obsolete, appearing nonsensical to 19^th-century American readers!  It would have made much more sense for God, being all-powerful, to give Smith a vernacular translation so people could understand it.  For example, 2 Nephi 13:18-23, uses terminology for women’s jewelry very specific to the culture in which the King James Version was written: “In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; the chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; the rings, and nose jewels; the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; the glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.”  By the time the Book of Mormon is even supposedly given to Smith, these terms were largely obsolete and nonsensical to his audience.  This was taken directly from the King James Bible, without modification.

Secondly, the Book of Mormon contains pages upon pages of exact quotations from the Old Testament — it is not a complete, original document.  2 Nephi 12-24 is literally Isaiah 2-14.  13 chapters of straight verbatim prophecy from Isaiah is copied, and that’s just one instance of this!  That’s quite a quotation!  In addition, the scribal errors later found to be contained in the KJV were transferred into the Book of Mormon.  It is literally a word-for-word copy in many areas.  Again, if this were divinely inspired text, it would be no problem for God to prevent those small errors from entering the Book of Mormon.

In addition, there are a number of passages within the King James Version of the Bible which we know now are really just late additions to the text — with the more ancient manuscripts we find, we see these additions were not present in the earliest writings and are able to be corrected.  One such passage is Matthew 6:9-13, also known as the Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.  Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.  Amen.”  We now know this last line, “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever,” is a late addition to the text — it was not originally part of the inspired Scripture.

This is why modern translators such as those of the NIV and NASB versions have either removed the line altogether or marked it out as not having belonged to the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts.  However, when Joseph Smith quotes the Lord’s Prayer in 3 Nephi 13:9-13, this passage is kept!  If God was guiding the translation process, it does not make sense for Him to have left those passages uncorrected.

Another example of this is in the use of Mark 16:16-18 (from the KJV) found in Mormon 9:23-24: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”  This, too, is a late addition to the text, and now we see it was not originally part of the divine scriptures.  Yet Smith still quotes it verbatim in the Book of Mormon!  Smith is lifting entire passages out of the KJV and placing them in the Book of Mormon, including those passages which did not even exist originally!  Surely if God were guiding the process of translation, He would correct the error out of the newly-inspired text.  However, the evidence is just not there for the Book of Mormon.

These examples are just a couple of what are called the “textual anachronisms” in the Book of Mormon, meaning “the state or condition of being chronologically out of place.”  From a point of view which rejects the divine authority of the Book of Mormon, these essentially are times when Joseph Smith forgot he was supposed to be translating records of events which happened 2,000 years before his time and inserted details or events that would not become known until hundreds of years later.  Perhaps the textual anachronism most threatening to the LDS doctrine is its quotation of Jesus hundreds of years before He lived or the New Testament hundreds of years before it was written.  For example, take John 10 when Jesus uses the analogy for Him and His followers of a shepherd and His sheep, saying “there shall be one flock and one shepherd” in verse 16.  This is found also in 1 Nephi 13:41, where supposedly Jesus states, “for there is one God and one shepherd over all the earth.”  Remember 1 Nephi was supposed to have been written around 588bc.  Besides the fact the Nephi quotation is clearly a paraphrase of the New Testament gospel not written until hundreds of years later, it also quotes Jesus — who wasn’t alive and wouldn’t have been alive for hundreds of years.

In addition, the Book of Mormon quotes other passages from the New Testament before it was written.  For example, the phrase “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever,” found in Hebrews 13:8, is seen in many verses in the Book of Mormon.  Here are two examples (emphases added): “And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Moroni 10:19).  “For he is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him” (1 Nephi 10:18).  This same phrase is also used in 2 Nephi 23:27, Alma 31:17, and Mormon 9:9.

The Book of Mormon quotes not only the gospels before they were written, but it also quotes New Testament letters: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,” found in 1 Corinthians 15:33.  Note that this is a very unique phrase; however, Smith inserts it into the mouths of various Book of Mormon characters centuries before it was first written from Paul to the Corinthian church.  Here are three examples (emphases added): “Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God” (Mosiah 16:10).  “Behold, I say unto you, that there is no resurrection — or, I would say, in other words, that this mortal does not put on immortality, this corruption does not put on incorruption — until after the coming of Christ” (Alma 40:2).  “Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, everything to its natural frame — mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption” (Alma 41:4).

Another such example is a saying from Jesus that we find instead later in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.  “For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul” (3 Nephi 18:29).  This passage is strikingly similar to 1 Corinthians 11:29, “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself” (emphasis added).

Another anachronism is found when Jesus appears to be quoting Peter’s sermon at the Day of Pentecost in 3 Nephi 20:23-26:

Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.  And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.  Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me.  And behold, ye are the children of the prophets; and ye are of the house of Israel; and ye are of the covenant which the Father made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  The Father having raised me up unto you first, and sent me to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; and this because ye are the children of the covenant.

This seems to be directly quoting Peter from the Day of Pentecost, Acts 3:22-25:

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Often the writers of the New Testament will quote or paraphrase something from the Old Testament in their writings.  Another problem with the Book of Mormon is that instead of quoting or paraphrasing from the Old Testament, it takes the New Testament paraphrase of the Old Testament.  This is a problem because the events in the Book of Mormon were supposed to have taken place before the New Testament was written.  It is a giveaway of sorts.  For example, let’s examine this quotation from the Book of Mormon: “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you” (1 Nephi 22:20).  That sounds an awful lot like Deuteronomy 18:18: “And God told Moses: ‘I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.’”  However, Joseph Smith is not quoting this passage from the Old Testament; he is quoting its paraphrase in Acts 3:22, which states, “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.”  This passage is nearly identical to the one found in the Book of Mormon.  How could Smith have had access to the New Testament paraphrases of the Old Testament when the New Testament would not have been written for at least another 500 years?  This simply doesn’t add up.

In addition, the writers of the New Testament repeatedly mention the message of the gospel was a mystery until the incarnation of Christ.  It did not become fully understandable, fully clear, or fully known, until that point.  We see that in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 3:2-5 (emphasis added): “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you: How that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”  There is clearly this idea that in other ages before the incarnation of Christ, salvation could not be fully understood.  This idea is repeated in Colossians 1:26, 1 Peter 1:1-12, and Romans 16:25-26.

However, Joseph Smith disregards this.  The characters in the Book of Mormon reveal the gospel exactly how the New Testament writers reveal it, whereas the New Testament writers state that before their time all the specifics on salvation were a mystery.  He reveals this out of sequence — about 570 years prior to the coming of Christ.

There are also several conceptual anachronisms present in the Book of Mormon chronology, discrepancies between the Bible and the Book of Mormon as to when certain concepts were introduced.  For example, the church is described far before it was actually founded.  Matthew 16:18 states the church is something yet to come, not already present: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (emphasis added).  This is Jesus talking, and note He indicates the building of His church as a future act.  The church is not something already existing prior to the incarnation.  In Acts 2:47 this idea is repeated.  In contrast, the Book of Mormon claims the church was founded around 147bc.  “And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward.  And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church” (Mosiah 18:17, emphasis added).  The time of this writing, around 147bc, clearly precedes Jesus’ own words about the timing of the founding of the church.

Additionally, discrepancy occur as to when followers of Christ were first called “Christians.”  As Acts 11:26 states, “And when he found him, he brought him to Antioch.  So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people.  The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (emphasis added).  Again, Smith has a different idea.  “And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come” (Alma 46:15, emphasis added).  At least as early as when the events in this book supposedly took place, 73bc, Smith is stating Christians had their name.

A third difference is the timing of the bestowing of the Holy Spirit.  “I am going to send you what My Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).  The Bible teaches the Holy Spirit was not received by anyone until the day of Pentecost (in the New Testament era).  Jesus promises it right before His ascension, but it is not actually bestowed until that day.  The coming of the Holy Spirit is described in Acts 2:1-4: “When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.  They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them” (emphasis added).

However, Smith writes in 2 Nephi 31:12-13, “And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism — yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel” (emphases added).  The Book of Mormon describes the bestowing of the Holy Spirit as early as 545bc — this is centuries before the Bible describes it as being bestowed.

There are not only literary and conceptual anachronisms, but also physical or cultural anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon.  Certain details were included in the Book of Mormon describing various physical items or parts of culture in 5^th-century bc America we know to be false.  Remember that in writing the Book of Mormon, Smith is claiming to chronicle the history of the American continent.  If his claims are true, then we should find what we know about items available in 5^th-century bc America lines up with how he describes it.

From the perspective of paleontology, Smith’s claims do not add up.  The first anachronism of this type worth discussing is the Book of Mormon’s repeated mentioning of horses — we see this in many verses: “Behold, he is feeding thy horses.  Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi” (Alma 18:9, emphases added).  “And it came to pass in the seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance” (3 Nephi 3:22, emphasis added).  The allusion to horses is also made in Alma 18:12 and throughout Alma 26.  Horses are clearly something Smith supposes to be commonplace in 5^th-century bc America.  We know from history horses were in fact present on the North American continent at some point, however they had long gone extinct before this time period, by about 8,000bc.  In fact, horses did not reappear on the North American continent until they were imported by the Spaniards in the 15^th and 16^th centuries.

Ether 1:19 is another verse mentioning not only horses but elephants as well, which were not present in 5^th-century bc America either: “And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms” (emphases added).  We know creatures such as mastodons and mammoths lived in primordial, very ancient times (they also vanished by about 8,000bc), but again, they would be extinct long before this civilization supposedly took place.  Such is the case with the Book of Mormon’s mentioning of cows, goats, and pigs.  “[The house of Emer had] also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man” (Ether 9:18, emphases added).  “And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men” (1 Nephi 18:25, emphases added).  Smith is implying these cows, goats, and pigs were domesticated by the people of North America.  However, there is simply no evidence of any of these animals even being present on the North American continent at this time.  Not until Europeans bring them over in the 15^th and 16^th centuries do we see evidence of their existence, much too lengthy a gap for the Book of Mormon to be considered historically accurate.

In addition to these animals, we also have food being described here in the Americas long before it was ever harvested.  For example, barley and wheat are described as present throughout the Book of Mormon.  We know barley and wheat are not native to North America, and they, too, are only introduced after the Europeans brought them after Columbus.

However, the most alarming physical anachronism found in the Book of Mormon is its description of weapons used by its characters.  For example, chariots are often mentioned either as an everyday method of transportation or a war-time vehicle.  “The king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi….  Now when king Lamoni heard that Ammon was preparing his horses and his chariots he was more astonished, because of the faithfulness of Ammon” (Alma 18:9-10, emphases added).  The fact is simply no evidence exists for the use of any wheeled vehicle at this time in the history of the American continent.  The wheel is completely unknown to pre-Columbian cultures.  We do not see its use in any other culture of this time; even the Incan culture then reflected a similar lack of wheeled vehicles.

The insertion of the use of metal swords into the Book of Mormon narrative is another physical or cultural anachronism found.  “And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us” (2 Nephi 5:14, emphases added).  “And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust” (Mosiah 8:11, emphases added).  Again, there is a clear lack of evidence when it comes to the use of metal swords in the time period these events supposedly took place.  There is no evidence these people even had the ability to create swords in the first place.  On the other hand, ample evidence supports  the use of other weapons: wooden clubs, stone weapons, even wooden swords — however, the description of swords in the Book of Mormon describes them as rusting, meaning they were supposedly metal swords.  Historical evidence shows this as merely a false, unsupported claim.

At the famous Mormon temple in Utah, in the films shown throughout the temple center, it seems the Mormons themselves have to admit to this anachronism.  These films depict events from the Book of Mormon, and during battle scenes only wooden weapons are depicted.  It is interesting even the Mormons themselves see this allusion to metal swords to be an anachronism and choose to simply remove them from the original narrative and insert the use of a more reasonable weapon into their films.

In addition to weapons are other chronological problems in the Book of Mormon.  Other inventions are supposedly being often used before they were even created.  Metal-based exchange systems are one such invention.  The idea a monetary exchange system took in place in 5^th-century bc America using precious metals is seen throughout Alma 11, yet the same problem occurs in this claim of Smith’s: there is no archeological or historical evidence to suggest this metal-based exchange system existed in this time period.  The most common exchange system in Meso-America (around Central America) at this time was that of cocoa beans, but we have no evidence for any culture using metal-based exchange systems at this time.

The use of silk is another anachronism in many Book of Mormon verses: “And it came to pass in the eighth year of the reign of the judges, that the people of the church began to wax proud, because of their exceeding riches, and their fine silks, and their fine-twined linen” (Alma 4:6, emphasis added).  “And they did have silks, and fine-twined linen; and they did work all manner of cloth, that they might clothe themselves from their nakedness” (Ether 10:24, emphasis added).  Allusions to silk are also found in 1 Nephi 13, Alma 1:29, and Ether 9:17.  Silk was certainly common to Joseph Smith in his time, but it did not arrive in the Americas until the 15^th and 16^th centuries with the Europeans.

The Book of Mormon also includes a wealth of references to the use of compasses.  “And it came to pass that as my father arose in the morning, and went forth to the tent door, to his great astonishment he beheld upon the ground a round ball of curious workmanship; and it was of fine brass.  And within the ball were two spindles; and the one pointed the way whither we should go into the wilderness” (1 Nephi 16:10).  “And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director — or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it” (Alma 37:38, emphasis added).  Remember the invention of the compass doesn’t occur until in China around 1100ad.  In addition, no remains of this device supposedly in existence in 5^th-century bc America have been found: another cultural anachronism building the case the Book of Mormon is historically and archeologically incorrect.

Smith’s description of windows also presents a problem in the Book of Mormon’s chronology.  “And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels?  For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire” (Ether 2:22-23).  Note Smith is putting forth the idea a type of window that could be “dashed into pieces” as the text reads (apparently meaning a modern window with glass panes) was extant at the time of the Jeredites.  According to the Book of Mormon itself, the Jeredites supposedly came out of the Towel of Babel — many hundreds of years before the first invention of such windows in 11^th-century Germany.  To be fair, glass in the form of beads was certainly present even in ancient Egyptian times.  However, saying there existed glass windows capable of being “dashed into pieces” in this time period is an unfounded claim as far as history goes.

Smith also uses yet another form of anachronism in the Book of Mormon: he employs words that did not exist at the time the events supposedly took place.  For example, the word “Bible” was not used until centuries after the characters in the Book of Mormon supposedly lived; however, it seems to be commonplace in the narrative: “And because my words shall hiss forth — many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible!  A Bible!  We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible … Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.  Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?” (2 Nephi 29:3, 6).  In these two verses the word “Bible” is used 8 times.  This is a problem because the Greek word biblos is not used as the title for the Christian canon of Scripture until the 5^th-century ad, ranging from centuries to a millennium later.

The use of the word “Christ” or “Messiah” also presents a chronological problem for the Book of Mormon.  We have these characters from the Book of Mormon using the term centuries before the term was used, and centuries before the Greek word Christos, transliterated to the word “Christ,” had its origin.  “And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation” (Helaman 5:12).  This term is being used here about 545 years before the term “Christ” is coined.

Smith’s use of the word “synagogue” is also premature.  He uses this term in Alma 16:13: “And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews” (emphasis added).  Scholars now know the synagogue did not exist in the way we know it today before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity.  This concept would have been nonsense to Jews before that time, and therefore nonsense to all of these Book of Mormon characters Alma is supposedly speaking to, including himself.

Finally, Smith also puts the French word “adieu” into the mouths of the Book of Mormon characters.  “And I, Jacob, saw that I must soon go down to my grave; wherefore, I said unto my son Enos: Take these plates … and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words.  Brethren, adieu” (Jacob 7:27, emphasis added).  This word is being used hundreds of years before the creation of the French term — Jacob would not even know the meaning of this word, yet Smith inserts it into his language as if the term were commonplace.

Even some names of the Book of Mormon characters are names not in use until long after these characters supposedly lived.  For example, the name “Isabel” in Alma 39:3: “And this is not all, my son.  Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel” (emphasis added).  This name does not come into use until the later Middle Ages in French and Germany — quite a jump from 5^th-century bc North America.  This name would not be known to anyone nor used by anyone before that time.

Another kind of anachronism the Book of Mormon deals with is events, often describing in the past tense events which have actually not yet occurred if the narrative is in the time period it claims to be.  The most notable example of this is the coming, death, and resurrection of Christ.  These events, which did not even occur until centuries after the Book of Mormon was supposedly written, are described as already having happened by the Book of Mormon characters:

And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfill all righteousness in being baptized by water?  Know ye not that he was holy?  But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.  Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove (2 Nephi 31:6-8, emphases added).

“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell” (2 Nephi 33:6, emphasis added).

Notice all the past-tense verbs in the above passages.  Again, 2 Nephi is supposed to have been written 5 or 6 centuries before Christ, much before these events even took place.  If the Book of Mormon’s chronology is correct, Nephi would not have stated Christ’s redemption as already having taken place since we know for a fact it does not happen until centuries later.  He easily could have instead said, “for he will redeem my soul from hell,” but that is not what Smith translates him as saying.  What he does insert we know to be an anachronism, further building up the case against Mormonism.

Keep in mind through all of this that although these events, concepts, or items were foreign to what we know of 5^th-century bc North America, they would have been commonplace notions to Joseph Smith in the time he was writing the Book of Mormon.  Smith had access to the New Testament writings and lived after the incarnation of Christ.  He would not have had to think twice if horses or pigs existed in his time period.  Terms such as “Christ” and “adieu” were not unusual, but commonplace terms with which he would have been familiar.  Having said this, let’s examine again which option is more likely: that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God who recorded true events which coincidentally do not line up with anything else we find in history, or that while making up his own story he occasionally forgot certain events, concepts, or ideas available to him were not available to the characters in the time period he was supposed to be chronicling?

At this point, the case for the divinity of the Book of Mormon is not promising.  However, still more evidence remains to be put forth before a final verdict is reached.  As has been shown, the Book of Mormon contains a lengthy set of anachronisms: many events, concepts, or items are claimed to be present in a time and place the rest of history rejects.  These anachronisms are all internal evidences proving the Book of Mormon as not divinely inspired.  I would venture to say that even if we did not have these inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon itself, sufficient external evidence exists to support its falsehood as well.

The Book of Mormon bears a striking resemblance to another work written about 5 years before the Book of Mormon was published called The View of the Hebrews.  Written by a man named Ethan Smith (no relationship to Joseph), the book’s main thesis argues the Native Americans were descended from the Hebrews.  In several ways, this literary work seems to parallel the Book of Mormon.  As examples, both use extensive quotations from Isaiah; both describe the future gathering of Israel and reuniting of the tribes; both describe a migration with a religious motive of the Native Americans and their breaking into two groups, the civilized and the uncivilized; both argue the Native Americans were descended from the Hebrews; both describe the Native American government moving from a monarchy to a republic; and both describe the spreading of the gospel in North America.

The fact there is a work this similar to the Book of Mormon, which preceded the Book of Mormon, and would have been prominent around the time Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, should concern us.  In fact, all those parallels were pointed out by Mormon apologist B. H. Roberts, who himself began to doubt the validity of the Mormon scriptures after discovering the similarities.  Doesn’t it seem more likely Joseph Smith merely stole Ethan Smith’s story and added a divine twist to it than that he was actually recording true events ironically similar to another book circulating at the time?

But setting even that aside, if we really wanted to look for some way to validate the truth claims of the Book of Mormon, there is one simple way.  Remember that the Book of Mormon is said to be deeply rooted in the history of the American continent.  Like the Bible, it claims to be the true recorded history of a vast population — a civilization that built buildings, engaged in commerce, waged wars, developed a complex culture, and so on.  We see archeologists have been able to verify many of the details of the Bible from their research.  If the Book of Mormon is claiming to be divine Scripture just as the Bible does, we must submit both to the same methods of examination.  An easy way for the Mormon to prove his case reasonably is simply to point out some piece of archeological evidence proving the historical account of the Book of Mormon.  Can the Mormon provide us with even this as an evidential basis for his beliefs?  No; there has never been an archeological discovery confirming a specific detail of the Book of Mormon.  If the events recorded in it actually took place, we should undoubtedly find something indicating that.  But not a single coin, not a single weapon, not a single wheel, not a single skeleton has been found.  Given the vast history recorded in the Book of Mormon, isn’t it reasonable to expect to find thousands of such artifacts?  Of all the cities talked about, shouldn’t we find foundations of ruined cities?  But we have found nothing of the sort.

During the same period of time when archeologists have made hundreds of discoveries about the Bible which confirm its reliability and accuracy, not one has been made to verify the Book of Mormon.  The typical Bible contains a number of detailed maps of the Holy Land, showing where certain events took place.  These events are archeologically verified.  Such is not the case with the Book of Mormon — no single map depicting any events exists because no geography can be found to match the Book of Mormon.  Even the best Mormon scholars can only produce rough sketches or diagrams of the geography described, and these sketches lack archeological support as well.

Two trustworthy institutions, the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian, refuse to conclude there is any archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.  The National Geographic Society, in a 1998 letter to the Institute for Religious Research, stated, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”  During the early 1980s, rumors were circulating within the LDS church it was being used by the Smithsonian to guide their research.  Once this report reached the ears of one of the Smithsonian directors in 1996, a letter was sent to the church clearing up this misconception, along with a list of reasons why the Smithsonian considered the narrative of the Book of Mormon “historically unlikely.”

At this point we have to go back again and examine where we stand in light of the evidence that has been offered.  Along the way, while new pieces of evidence were being introduced, we stopped occasionally to consider in light of the building evidence which case was more reasonable: the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon or lack thereof.  Now we have come to a point where we need to do that again.  Can we really say Mormonism has an evidential basis to its faith in light of what has been offered?  Or is it more likely Mormonism is a complex lie invented by Joseph Smith for his sexual, monetary, and influential gain, in which Smith does a poor job of lining up the narrative of his story with historical fact and known archeological and geographical evidence, borrowing the content of his narrative from writers before him?

If we were to stop here, I think we have a pretty solid case.  But there is one more crucial piece of evidence.  If one is at all on the fence at this point, this is likely the point after which the case can be closed.  Indeed if we knew no other piece of evidence but this, it is a strong indicator by itself the book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.

Joseph Smith is known to have translated another ancient text — the Book of Abraham.  The only difference between this and his translation of the Book of Mormon is we actually have the original papyri from which Smith translated the Book of Abraham.  We may not have the original plates for the Book of Mormon, but by examining how effectively and truthfully Smith translated the Book of Abraham, we are able to examine his methods of translation in this way as well.  When those originals were discovered, they were found to be nothing at all like what Smith had translated them to be.  There is not a single parallel.  Smith translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian hieroglyphics from his claimed divine inspiration.  It is important to know during the time in which Smith lived, 19^th-century America, these hieroglyphics were undecipherable.  He was free to tell the story of the Book of Abraham any way he wanted since no one else would be able to check his work.  However, today we do have that capability, and we see no parallels between the original and Smith’s translation.  This says a lot about Joseph as a prophet and exposes him for what he is.  If we’re looking for a test that examines the ability of Smith to translate ancient texts effectively, the Book of Abraham is that test — and he fails that test miserably.  Even if one could somehow justify all the other evidence presented thus far, it simply cannot be reconciled with the Book of Abraham.

This, I would say, is the final nail in the coffin for the divine inspiration of the Book of Mormon, and therefore the truth claims for Mormonism as a whole.  Now we have to ask ourselves this question one last time: which is more likely?

Mormonism arose in an environment prime for spinoffs of Christianity as a result of a historical happenstance, not divine influence.  It shouldn’t surprise us something like this would emerge.  We know Joseph Smith stood to gain by founding this new religion of Mormonism.  We know Smith had a past of fraudulent activity, in which he was still involved while making important discoveries about the golden plates.  We know Smith fraudulently utilized his childhood knowledge of using a seer stone to convince others he was translating ancient texts.  We know Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while falsely claiming he was translating an ancient text because of its wealth of anachronisms.  We know the Book of Mormon contains no archeologically verifiable information.  Lastly, we know Smith was ultimately exposed as a fraudulent author of a text he claimed was Scripture from God, the Book of Abraham.  In light of this, it can be reasonably concluded Mormonism is a lie, and Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

I know this will sound terribly harsh to anyone who is a Mormon, but my point in writing this is certainly not to bash Mormons in any way for their beliefs.  Neither would I advocate fellow Christians using these arguments to intentionally bash the beliefs of Mormons for the sake of appearing intellectually superior — as 1 Peter 3:15 states, we are to defend our faith with gentleness and respect.  However, I sincerely believe Mormonism to be false, from the basis of looking at the evidence.  I believe it is my duty as a Christian to “not be tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming,” and to encourage others to do the same.  If Mormonism is false, then the 13,824,854 Mormons in the world are believing a false gospel, indeed, “which is really no gospel at all,” according to Galatians 1:7.

I would like to emphasize it is from a purely evidential standpoint I believe Mormonism to be false.  Undoubtedly there are many kind, generous Mormons in the world, but there are also many kind, generous atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, you name it — and surely many unpleasant Christians as well!  It is the beliefs and evidential basis of a religion that make it true or false, not the character of its followers — and Mormonism simply does not pass the test or critical examination.

However, I know many Mormons do not in fact see the need to even examine their faith from an evidential standpoint — instead, they believe all that is necessary is a “burning in the bosom,” a mere feeling given by God Mormonism is the one true religion, the one correct lens through which to view reality.  In fact, here is an excerpt from an actual message sent to me by a missionary from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints during a discussion:

I encourage you to read at least the first 26 verses [of the history of Joseph Smith] and then ponder the good things he did that follow the invitations God has given us to ask and knock when we need things.  Finally, when you feel it is appropriate, honestly ask God if this account is true or how He feels about it and what He wants you to learn from it.  That’s what I did, and I can logically see good fruits of the restored Gospel (as explained in Matthew) as well as have felt a confirming peace and conviction of truth through God’s Spirit on multiple occasions.

So, is a feeling of a conviction of truth good enough?  This idea would assume God, the author of reason, wants us to abandon reason so we are able to believe in Him — which on its face doesn’t make sense.  Neither does this claim make sense when weighed against the Bible, specifically the book of Acts.  In Acts 1:3 Jesus appeared to the apostles after His resurrection and “showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive.”  In addition, we see it was Paul’s routine to reason with the people to whom he witnessed.  Acts 17:2-3 states, “He reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.”  Because of this, as recorded in Acts 17:4, “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas.”  God intends us to use the reasoning skills He has given us to examine everything — and the Bible is clear He is not offended when we use these skills to examine our own faith.

We know we must use reasoning and evidence to be able to “provide an answer to everyone who asks us the reason for the hope that we have,” as 1 Peter 3:15 commands, and that reason must be grounded in evidence, not emotion, as seen throughout Acts.  I invite you to consider this and other evidence for yourself and make your own decision regarding which worldview is the most reasonable.  As the famous astronomer Galileo, a Christian, stated, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”