Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

YHWH, the traditional God of Judaism, has a name so holy that for millennia worshippers have dared not even to speak it. Special rituals surrounded the word both written and spoken. When Jewish scribes translated their Scriptures, the divine name would not be transcribed but would be replaced by the equivalent of “LORD.” The divine name was considered so holy as to be literally unpronounceable. To this day, in many religious circles it is considered highly offensive to speak the name of YHWH. While this current state of affairs is often taken as assurance of the inherent bond between YHWH and Israelite religion, recent scholarship has called this assumption into question. Various lines of evidence seem to point to the fact Israel once shared in the polytheism of its Ancient Near Eastern neighbors.¹

Undoubtedly, there are portions of the Hebrew Bible that affirm a monotheistic understanding of God. Isaiah 45:18 proclaims, “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” In Deuteronomy 6:4, in the context of teaching the Israelites new commandments, Moses speaks, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.” In these and other passages, YHWH is taken to be one and only divine being, certainly the only one worthy of worship. Yet there are other sections of the Bible that seem to offer a quite different portrait of Israelite theology. For example, later on in Deuteronomy, Moses sings of El Elyon, chief god in the Canaanite divine pantheon, giving underling god YHWH the people of Israel over which to rule.² The Psalmist records a scene of YHWH sitting in a divine council among other gods.³ Multiple texts mention both YHWH and El but as separate figures.⁴ In general, these passages specifically affirming monotheism are typically dated later in Israel’s history, while the passages that seem to affirm polytheism have been dated earlier.⁵

Thus, in order to accurately trace the development of Israelite religion over time, we must recognize the diverse historical and theological contexts in which the various authors of the Hebrew Bible wrote. There are varying theologies in the Hebrew Bible affixed to different time periods in Israel’s history. It is through examination of such theologies and the historical circumstances in which they arose that we might begin to reconstruct the development of the religion over time. Because the Israelites were a relatively numerically insignificant people group in the Ancient Near East constantly being dominated by larger and more powerful nations, there were certain ideas about religion and divinity in the Ancient Near East that could not have helped but bleed into Israelite ideas about God. This is simply the milieu out of which Israel emerged. For instance, the idea of a divine pantheon permeated the Ancient Near Eastern religious landscape. The most powerful god in the pantheon was El: supreme god of Canaanite religion.⁶ El was conceived of as the father and chief of the divine pantheon. At least one scholar has suggested one stage in early Israelite theology, perhaps around the time of the exodus, included El as head of the pantheon directing YHWH, his warrior god based off of texts like the aforementioned Deuteronomy 32:8-9.⁷

But disparate biblical passages are not the only access the modern historian has to ancient Israelite piety. Almost all ancient Semitic names are theophoric: they convey information about the god worshipped by the bearer of that name. Often, these names are composed of a subject with a divine element (a form of YHWH or ‘ēl, for example) and a predicate (a verb denoting the god’s action). Scholars have thus been able to avail themselves of both biblical and epigraphic names in order to reconstruct the piety of ancient peoples. When carefully interpreted, theophoric names can be an important piece in a larger puzzle reconstructing ancient religion.

Perhaps the most significant ‘ēl name mentioned in the Bible is that of Israel itself. Though YHWH is the god traditionally associated with the people Israel, a closer look at the name’s meaning reveals a more complicated picture. The divine element present in “Israel” is ‘ēl, not YHWH. Though the etymology of the word is contentious, possible meanings include “May El Combat” and “El is just.”⁸ For this reason, combined with the aforementioned biblical passages that appear to refer to El as a deity distinct from YHWH, Mark Smith maintains the original God of Israel was, in fact, El.⁹ There would have been nothing preventing the adoption of a Yahwistic name, such as “yisra-yahweh,” or “yisra-yah.”¹⁰ In the absence of this, then, it is reasonable to assume Israel initially perceived El as head of the divine pantheon, and only later came to recognize YHWH as the one true God.

Indeed, non-Yahwistic names abound throughout the Hebrew Bible as well as in contemporaneous epigraphic data. The most abundant non-Yahwistic divine element is, as might be expected from Israel’s name, ‘ēl. However, ‘ēl names occur significantly more liberally during certain portions of Israel’s history, particularly prior to the time of David. Even within the biblical corpus, one is able to observe a shift around the time of David from predominantly ‘ēl names to YHWH names.¹¹ This shift appears to be concurrent with the phenomenon of pantheon reduction in Israel.¹² One is able to observe a general tendency within the Hebrew Bible wherein the worship of the whole pantheon of gods commonplace in the Ancient Near East dwindled down further and further until YHWH was the only acceptable recipient of Israelite worship.¹³ Dennis Pardee has located this major religious shift throughout the second half of the Iron Age.¹⁴

All of this is complicated by the fact much later in Israel’s history, after the exile, ‘ēl is clearly meant as the generic term for “god.” Independent scholar Ryan Thomas makes the point “there can be little doubt based on its prevalence in post-exilic Hebrew names that the theophoric ‘ēl was used as a designation for the national deity YHWH.”¹⁵ Scholars thus run into problems when making straightforward inferences about ancient Israelite piety solely based off the divine element ‘ēl in personal names. Thomas continues, stating “the meaning of the term ‘ēl is often ambiguous in personal names, since it can be used as a proper name, an appellative, or a reference to the personal god, ‘my god.’”¹⁶

Thus, at some point in the development of Israelite religion, the semantics of ‘ēl in personal names shifted. While it once referred to the Canaanite god El, father and chief of the divine pantheon, it eventually came to be used as a generic term for “god.” The question of precisely when, why, and how the semantics of ‘ēl shifted is of great interest for biblical scholars looking to reconstruct ancient Israelite religious history. For purposes of this paper, I wish to focus on the “when” question. What is the semantic meaning of the divine element ‘ēl in theophoric names at the time of the late Iron Age? Does ‘ēl refer to the high Canaanite god El, or does it function as a generic term for “god” such that, for the Israelites, it is essentially interchangeable with YHWH? Throughout this paper, I will argue theophoric personal ‘ēl names at the time of the late Iron Age are evidence of lingering fluid notions of divinity within Israel on a familial level.

Only fairly recently in biblical scholarship has it been considered ‘ēl in personal names may not be a title for YHWH. Jeaneane Fowler simply assumes in her 1988 study the both divine elements are semantically equivalent.¹⁷ Jeffrey Tigay has argued for the same in 1986.¹⁸ However, new research in the field of onomastics by Ryan Thomas does not allow for such a facile identification of these divine elements. My hope is through my presentation and interpretation of his research, what has up until this point been a comfortable consensus view within biblical scholarship will be problematized.

In the Ancient Near East, each theophoric name contains both a divine element, typically as subject, followed by a predicate. For example, the biblical name Abijah (‘abiyah) contains the YHWH divine element and means “YHWH is my father.” Scholars have long been in the practice of putting together collections of theophoric names in order to make comparisons between YHWH and other Ancient Near Eastern deities in the conception of ancient Israelite worshippers.

Recently, Ryan Thomas has combined the work of several earlier scholars to create a composite database of late Iron Age Hebrew personal names.¹⁹ Importantly, both biblical and epigraphic data are thus included in this set. Thomas points out methodological problems associated with the sole use of biblical names to reconstruct ancient Israelite religion. Uncertainty about the dating of particular texts as well as the possibility of later redaction present issues with a straightforward interpretation of personal names in biblical texts. Thomas reminds us, “In all likelihood, the names stem from disparate time periods and reflect different stages in the development of a mono-YHWHistic sensibility.”²⁰ Another strength of Thomas’s collection is its exclusion of possibly inauthentic archaeological material.²¹

When Thomas compared the predicates of the personal names, he found half of all the names occur with predicates attested with either theophoric element (YHWH or ‘ēl). That is to say at least half of the time, YHWH and ‘ēl are essentially interchangeable in terms of the actions they perform or the descriptions afforded to them. Given this evidence alone, he says, “We could reasonably assume that YHWH was the regular proper name of the chief Israelite deity during the monarchic period and later, while El was an additional title reflecting the deity’s historical development from or conflation with Canaanite El.”²²

While he acknowledges this evidence may be interpreted as an interchangeability of YHWH and El, thereby upholding the consensus view, a closer look at the data complicates this conclusion. More important than the similarities between the predicative elements are the differences. As it turns out, though half of the YHWH and ‘ēl personal names occur with predicates attested in both, this occurs with a relatively small number of predicates. The actual number of predicates able to be used with either YHWH or ‘ēl is rather low, at 21%. Many (58%) of the predicates are attested only with the YHWH theophoric, but few (20%) are attested only with an ‘ēl theophoric.²³ Because of the fact 78% of the individual predicates are exclusive to either YHWH or ‘ēl, Thomas sees reason to believe their onomastic profiles were distinct to the extent they may have still been conceived of as separate deities.²⁴

In fact, some predicates exclusive to YHWH and ‘ēl are found in multiple instances, increasing the likelihood these are part of distinctive onomastic profiles.²⁵ Thus, there are predicates occurring abundantly with ‘yah that have no equivalent in ‘ēl, and vice versa. To make things more interesting, predicates unique to each name can be grouped into particular categories, allowing us to make generalizations about the conception of each deity’s character. For example, the predicates of YHWH names tend to be more closely associated with the following characteristics: strong and powerful, warrior-like, protective, and triumphant, immanent, beautiful, engaged in the birth process, acting as a witness and intercessor, with a need to advance his claims of lordship.²⁶ In many ways, these predicates cohere with the image of YHWH as “warrior god who intervenes in favor of his people.”²⁷ Predicates attested only with El names, on the other hand, emphasize general beneficence, transcendence and firmness, judgeship and authority, force behind the birth process, and his identity as a covenant partner.²⁸ Likewise, this picture of El fits quite nicely with what we know of El as the powerful father of the divine pantheon: the elderly bearded figure who sits enthroned among the divine council.²⁹

One seemingly important difference between YHWH and El deals with the kinship terminology specific to each. Throughout the Ancient Near East, kinship terms are used alongside divine elements in personal names as “divine epithets or appellatives.”³⁰ Certain epithets, such as “paternal uncle” and “father-in-law,” are seen abundantly with ‘ēl but never with YHWH. In contrast, “brother” is attested at least 28 times with YHWH but never with ‘ēl.³¹ YHWH is, emphatically, “the divine brother,” in contrast to El whose profile is more “parental and ancestral.”³²

Based off of these unique emphases, Thomas summarizes what he takes to be the overall difference between YHWH and El: “YHWH is implied to be more of an active, young, interventionist, and warrior deity, whose lordship must be asserted, whereas El is more transcendent, abstract, and secure in his authoritative position.”³³ Thomas’s ultimate conclusion on this is we should consider the possibility YHWH and ‘ēl were actually just still separate deities throughout the monarchic period for both Israel and Judah.

There may also be distinctions made between YHWH and El in other late Iron Age epigraphic data. Kuntillet ‘Ajrud has revealed various inscriptions wherein El is praised. While it has generally been taken for granted that, in these cases, El is to be identified with YHWH, Mark Smith has pointed out this is not necessarily the case. It is equally possible El still referred to the high Canaanite god who is the father of the pantheon.³⁴

The divine elements present in Israelite personal names are clearly of religious significance, but the question remains as to what level of religious significance they occupy. We must recall there are different levels of religion in the Ancient Near East: familial, local, and national. It is not necessarily the case all three of these will cohere, though neither is it necessary they will be incompatible.³⁵ Albertz and Schmitt point to the curious absence of any official Israelite tradition in personal names. There are no references to those specific elements of the Hebrew narrative one might expect if one’s name was intended to express the official national religion: elements such as exodus, conquest, kingship, Sinai, Zion, or Bethel.³⁶ “The primary traditions of official Israelite state and temple religion are thus almost entirely absent from both biblical and epigraphic names.” Nor do official cultic activities make appearances in the predicates.³⁷ It is merely the divine element itself, whether YHWH or ‘ēl, that shows up in personal names.

This absence does not suggest a lack of familiarity or disagreement on the part of everyday Israelites with the official religious traditions of their polity. Though familial religion is distinct from state religion, this difference does not necessarily mean there is a conflict between them.³⁸ It merely reinforces the separation of religious spheres of influence present in most Ancient Near Eastern societies more generally. Albertz uses the term “internal religious pluralism” to describe this phenomenon, which may be more helpful than “syncretism” in describing the ways in which social stratification can create divisions between family and state religion.³⁹ As Dennis Pardee comments, “We may conclude that the proper names inform us of a different and broader pantheon in the popular religion perceivable in the proper names, as compared with the official religion of the Bible and of most of the extra-biblical inscriptions….”⁴⁰ It is thus safe to conclude the religious experiences that resulted in names for children were “almost entirely independent of the official state and temple religion.”⁴¹

Rather than relying on the events of their polity’s collective past, Israelite families contained their own reservoirs of religious experience from which to draw when naming a child. Names were often influenced by the religious experiences of mothers during events surrounding the birth of a child. After giving birth, mothers were mandated to spend a given period of time separated from their families as a “cryptic reflection of the intimate encounter with the divine that has happened during birth.”⁴² It was during this time the mother would come up with a name for the child, often influenced by the religious experiences they had during their period of confinement after the birth. During the joyful reuniting of the mother and new baby with the rest of the family, there was a feast during which the father would have the chance to accept or reject the name chosen by the mother.

Thus, a very robust set of rituals surrounding pregnancy and birth abound in ancient Israel. Indeed, the event of childbirth was an incredibly important time in an Israelite woman’s life, believed to be a supernatural intervention of God.⁴³ As a result, childbirth held incredibly significant events in the life of the entire family. This is substantiated by the large number of personal names that directly refer to the event of childbirth: a remarkable 25.9% of total ancient Israelite personal names contain some reference to birth within their predicates.⁴⁴ The largest subgroup of these names is composed from the verb natan “to give,” such as ‘ēlnatan “‘ēl has given [the child]” and Netanyahu “YHWH has given [the child].”⁴⁵

Thus, it is most reasonable to assume it is the religious piety of the family, especially the mother, that provides the impetus for the inclusion or exclusion of either the YHWH or ‘ēl divine element. The fact there exists such a robust onomasticon for ‘ēl, one able to be distinguished from YHWH, begs the question of interpretation. While it is theoretically possible this incongruence in onomastic profiles is merely an accident of historical discovery, and archeologists may one day unearth more epigraphic data to suggest YHWH and El were indeed conceived of more similarly, it is not likely this “incremental aggregation will dramatically alter the basic picture provided by the biblical record as well as the accumulation of inscriptional material over the last century.”⁴⁶ At any rate, we must reconstruct history with the tools available to us today and be willing to revise them should contradictory evidence come to light.

A deeper understanding of the unique ways in which Ancient Near Easterners conceived of divinity in general is helpful in interpreting these results. I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas there are clearly distinct onomastic profiles associated with YHWH and El. However, I want to challenge the idea distinct onomastic profiles automatically necessitate two ontologically distinct gods. While this is a fairly typical assumption for those of us steeped in Western civilization to make, it is problematic when applied to Ancient Near Eastern religion. Benjamin Sommer helpfully elucidates: “For Ancient Near Eastern religions, gods could have multiple bodies and fluid selves. Greek religion assumed a basic resemblance between mortals and immortals in this respect, whereas Ancient Near Eastern religions posited a radical contrast between them.”⁴⁷ Thus, worship of two differently named gods ought not be blindly taken as an expression of polytheism. In fact, Ancient Near Eastern ideas about gods are better described along a spectrum of fluidity vs. nonfluidity than one of polytheism vs. monotheism.⁴⁸

Sommer points to two sorts of divine fluidity present in the Ancient Near East, the first of which is called “fragmentation.”⁴⁹ Examples exist of multiple gods with a single name who “somehow are and are not the same deity.”⁵⁰ In this sense, one might find different “iterations” of the same god at specific locales. This sort of divine fluidity is found among gods of the same name. A possible allusion to this concept is found in the epigraphic evidence at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which mentions “YHWH of Teman.”⁵¹ This may have been what the Deuteronomist was targeting in the Shma.⁵²

However, for purposes of conflation of ‘ēl with YHWH, I am more interested in the second sort of fluidity Sommer outlines, involving “the overlap of identity between gods who are usually discrete selves.”⁵³ He continues by describing several Akkadian texts that “describe one god as an aspect of another god,” and others that “refer to two gods as a single god even though the same texts also refer to each of these gods individually.”⁵⁴ Even with gods of two different names, this occurs. One prominent example of this concept of fluidity is found in the Babylonian creation epic, the Enuma Elish. At one point in this poem, Anu, Ea, and Enlil, the three high gods of Mesopotamia, are all equated with young Marduk.⁵⁵ However, perhaps a more instructive example for our purposes is found in this late-second-millennium hymn to the god Marduk:

Sommer suggests an “incipient monotheism”⁵⁷ in this hymn: while it makes reference to gods other than Marduk, it reveals its writers have begun to conceive of the personalities of these other gods as extensions of Marduk rather than ontologically distinct beings. Given the rampant cultural diffusion in the Ancient Near East, it is thus reasonable to suppose even in their pre-exilic references to ‘ēl, ancient Israelites did not conceive of El as ontologically distinct from YHWH but as a manifestation of a particular grouping of YHWH’s qualities.⁵⁸

Therefore, it is possible in drawing upon the older figure of El in the naming of their children, Israelites of the late Iron Age were actually making a statement about YHWH: mapping onto him characteristics that had, up until that point, been associated only with El. The ancient Israelites were no strangers to the fact El originally referred to the high Canaanite father of the divine pantheon. This would have been a deliberate move that would have expanded rather than constricted the repertoire of YHWH.

This is reasonable partly because it is precisely the move the biblical authors would eventually fully make in explaining Israel’s prior worship of El. The qualities that once belonged to El are mapped onto YHWH in new ways that reinforce the new understanding of YHWH’s transcendence and lordship over all. For example, the Psalmist equates YHWH with Elyon, an epithet hitherto used only of El.⁵⁹ When Israel adopted YHWH as its chief god rather than El, it did not break whole cloth from previous worship traditions. Instead, as Smith states, “At a variety of sites, Yahweh was incorporated into the older figure El, who belonged to Israel’s original West Semitic religious heritage.”⁶⁰ The title ‘ēl berit, “El of the covenant,” became a signifier for YHWH.⁶¹ When YHWH first reveals his name in Exodus 3, he does so while implying Israel’s ancestors had worshipped him under a different name.⁶²

To make this statement is emphatically not to suggest YHWH and El were essentially interchangeable in the minds of ancient Israelites at the time of the late Iron Age. Again, there does not appear to be firm evidence denoting this phenomenon until after the exile. What I am instead proposing is an intermediate step between the Israelite familial worship of El as a fluid deity and the worship of YHWH as a non-fluid deity: one in which specific states of being and activities traditionally attributed to El are beginning to be thought of as expressions of YHWH’s power. Just as Adad is called the expression of Marduk’s might, so perhaps El had begun to be conceived of as the expression of YHWH’s transcendence.

There is precedent for such a fluid understanding of divinity within ancient Israel as well. Pardee comments:

Moreover, besides the name of the state deity Yahweh, there were several other acceptable divine names which could have been preferred names in one family or clan; these may even have been perceived as separate deities or hypostates — a situation comparable in some ways to the Christian trinity, which theologians have explained to acolytes as consisting of a three-fold expression of one (or the like), but which a significant number of Christians go on understanding simply as three.⁶³

These words are rich with meaning, particularly as we seek to conceive of possible relationships between ancient Israelite worship and Christian theology. Though non-fluid understandings of the divine appear to be quite foreign to many of our contemporary western and Christian notions of divinity, there may be less of this distance than is typically supposed. The concept of the Trinity, that God is somehow both three-in-one and one-in-three, has become central to Christian identity. In Trinitarian theology, it is said each person both is God and yet is not identical to the other persons. To the post-Enlightenment western rationalist, this seems to be an insurmountable illogical denial of the logical property of commutative identity. However, this understanding of divine possibility may have fit especially well in the mind of an ancient Israelite.

One God with multiple personalities, each carrying out a distinct function, can be seen as a parallel to non-fluid ancient Israelite understandings of YHWH and El. It is beyond the scope of this paper to speculate as to whether these ancient notions of non-fluidity played any sort of causal historical role in the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. All the same, we are able to look back on such notions and see definitive parallels in contemporary understandings of a Christian God who is, in some sense, fluid. That such echoes of fluidity persist in Christian theology helpfully collapses some of the distance between the late Iron Age Israelite worship and contemporary religious practice.

The process of pantheon reduction by which YHWH assumed his place as non-fluid Lord of the whole universe was a complex, centuries-long process in Israel. Studying this process, however, is more than mere intellectual gymnastics, and is of value to the Christian theologian. For some, the fact YHWH achieved his place in Israelite history through a slow, meandering process is a threat to YHWH’s power. However, there are other theological angles from which to view this historical development. When Ancient Israelites began to transfer worship to YHWH previously offered to El, they were making a statement that reflected their evolving knowledge of God that preserved the glorious process of an evolving awareness of the totality of God’s power. YHWH is not only the immanent advocate and brother, but is also the transcendent, immensely powerful Father, enjoying power over all of creation. That God is revealed incrementally to God’s people in ways they are able to perceive is a timeless principle of Christian theology, one we would do well to remember still today.

Endnotes

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

I. Translation and Notes

II. Outline

This poem begins with a strong exhortation of a valiant woman as elusive, rare, and extremely valuable. This theme is repeated at the end, where she is praised by her children, her husband, and her community. Most of the poem’s content, however, lies in the middle, in which the woman’s activities and her character are explored. After the initial exhortation, the poem discusses the woman’s manifold talents: providing food and clothes for her family, making profitable business decisions, acting generously towards the poor, etc. There is no obvious order to this list, but immediately following it are explanations of the woman’s character based off of such activities. Because of these skills, she has no fear for the future and is able to freely offer herself and her gifts to her family.

Thus, the flow of the text suggests there is a way in which the woman’s activities shape her so she can be in a place of freedom and self-giving love with respect to her family. Something about the nature of the activities in which she partakes makes her fit to be called a “valiant woman.” The above outline draws attention to this by drawing out the link between her activities and the place she occupies in her home as a result of having engaged in them.

III. Poetic Features

Proverbs 31:10-31 is one of several acrostic poems found in the Old Testament. Each of its verses begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, beginning with א and ending with ת. Dr. Christine Yoder suggests this poem should therefore be taken as an exhaustive “A to Z description” of a valiant woman.⁶ This may explain why the woman’s activities did not appear to have an obvious order to them —perhaps the nature of the poetic form dictated the order of the content. The genre that best describes this acrostic is “heroic poetry.”⁷ Typically, heroic poetry describes the military exploits of an aristocratic male. However, Proverbs 31:10-31 shares several key structural elements with Hebrew heroic poetry. First, these poems directly relate actions done by the hero rather than focus on inner feelings of physical appearance.⁸ Secondly, they employ militaristic imagery. Besides the fact that חָ֫יִל is generally a militaristic term, the woman’s strength is referred to several times throughout the poem.⁹ Thirdly, the main character belongs to the upper class. The woman described is clearly of royal descent, evinced by her wearing of purple robes and fine linen.¹⁰ She enjoys command over maidservants and has enough resources to develop her own vineyard.¹¹ Thus, the fact this genre is used to describe this woman makes an implicit statement about the value of typically understated “woman’s work” in the household and economy.

Another possible function of the acrostic would have been to make the poem easier to memorize for purposes of recitation. In fact, this is how the acrostic actually came to be used in Jewish communities. Every Shabbat, a husband would sing this poem to his wife as a part of the evening ritual.¹² This tradition continues to the present day. Thus, Proverbs 31:10-31 can be understood as both encouragement to seek the archetypal godly wife and as a song of praise a husband uses to praise such a wife when one has been found.

IV. Literary Context

Proverbs 31 is a chapter of advice delivered to King Lemuel from his royal mother. Proverbs 31:1-9 outlines her warnings against “giving strength to women” and drinking wine.¹³ She further cautions him to defend those who are poor and needy.¹⁴ The opening of the chapter, therefore, forms the backdrop against which Proverbs 31:10-31 may be read: as practical advice related to the acquisition of a wife. Just as following his mother’s instruction to avoid drink and promiscuous women will preserve his identity as king, King Lemuel is encouraged to find a wife who will, by her character and valor, “match” his position as king.

Proverbs 31:10-31 also functions as a conclusion to the entire book of Proverbs, a book principally concerned with the acquisition of wisdom and the avoidance of folly. This conclusion forms an interesting contrast with the first nine chapters of Proverbs, which are devoted to explaining wisdom personified as a woman — referred to in scholarship as “Woman Wisdom.” Shared vocabulary and themes indicate the Valiant Woman in Proverbs 31 should be read alongside the profile of Woman Wisdom.¹⁵ I take the position of those who believe the two women “essentially coalesce.”¹⁶ Both women are rare, oversee young women, provide food, bestow honor on their companions, possess physical strength, extend their hands to the needy, laugh, and have identities associated with the “fear of the LORD.”¹⁷

That the Valiant Woman and Woman Wisdom both flank the content of the book of Proverbs draws attention to the differing ways in which each encourages wisdom to be accessed. In the beginning, a young son meets Woman Wisdom in the city streets. Now that the boy has grown, he encounters wisdom yet again —the difference being this time, he is her husband. The instruction he has gleaned throughout Proverbs put him in a new, more privileged position with respect to Wisdom and her benefits. King Lemuel’s mother wants to bring all this instruction to a practical closing: to encourage him to find a woman who embodies the Woman Wisdom. Perhaps it is her embodiment that will ensure a successful reign for King Lemuel.

At the same time, the quest for wisdom is necessarily ongoing. The structural composition of Proverbs as a whole is a testament to its content: at the end of a book of instruction to a young man who has grown into a King, there is yet more instruction about how to attain wisdom. Thus, the quest for wisdom is ongoing and cannot be exhausted even by the years spent in its pursuit.

V. Exegetical Focus

Proverbs 31:10-31 invites the reader to consider the rare reality of the human embodiment of Woman Wisdom: a valorous, capable woman whose diverse set of skills make her an irreplaceable, praiseworthy, and heroic unit in both family and society.

VI. Feminist Criticism

 Careful use of feminist criticism can yield further insight into possible interpretations of Proverbs 31:10-31. This form of post-analytical criticism, birthed in the 1970s following the women’s movement, takes seriously the reality biblical texts were written during patriarchal times and often without women in mind.¹⁸ In so doing, it attempts to counteract misogynistic interpretations of certain passages. Methodologically speaking, feminist criticism “moves women from the margins to the center of analysis in order to show alternatives to patriarchal and androcentric forms of thought and organization.”¹⁹ Proverbs 31:10-31 is unlike many biblical texts selected for feminist criticism in that this passage does in fact have a woman as its main character. Nevertheless, feminist criticism can still be of assistance by way of highlighting problematic ways various communities have received this poem.

Importantly, my approach differs from certain feminist biblical critics who believe the biblical text itself is in need of revision or rejection altogether.²⁰ While there have been undoubtedly damaging interpretations of this and other passages that have greatly injured women, I do not see anything inherently misogynistic in this passage. In my particular application of feminist criticism to the poem of the Valiant Woman, then, I will examine how this text has been received in conservative evangelical communities in ways that have hurt women with the goal of redeeming the original message of the passage. When stripped of interpretive bias and examined in light of its own cultural context, I believe Proverbs 31:10-31 is good news for women.

Contemporary conservative evangelical communities tend to place a great deal of emphasis on Proverbs 31 in their women’s ministries. Entire programs are set forth in order to encourage the development of “Proverbs 31 women,” typically meant to help women discover the ways in which they can improve themselves as creative and resourceful homemakers, caring mothers, and doting wives. Men, on the other hand, look at the passage as a checklist of qualities any future wife must meet. The result is an unhealthy amount of pressure on women to fit a specific profile of success, dangerously forcing some to fit into an artificial mode that ignores or devalues other parts of their identity.

Undoubtedly, much of this has a basis in the actual text. The Valiant Woman of Proverbs 31 is certainly a wonderful homemaker, mother, and wife. But trouble arises when interpreters ignore the vast cultural gulf that exists between 5^th-century B.C.E. Persia and 21^st-century American suburbia and simply “cut-and-paste” meaning from one culture to another. As Old Testament scholar John Walton says, it is not enough for biblical interpreters to translate language — culture must be translated as well.²¹ This means taking seriously the world in which the author of Proverbs wrote and the fact his words were received and applied in that cultural location first.

The poem was most likely composed in the period after the Babylonian exile during which important shifts in social structure greatly affected the place of the home in the formation of Israelite religious and cultural identity.²² Because the “outward” signs of Israelite identity — the “great national centers of government and religion” — had collapsed, the home became the new, most important social and religious institution.²³ In the absence of previous regulators, the home was the central place for economic activity, where goods were produced. In the 6^th century B.C.E., the home played a similar role as does the marketplace in 21^st-century America. Much like modern companies, these households were largely economic institutions in which every member worked to ensure the wellbeing of the entire unit. Members were not restricted to those related by blood and marriage, but rather included marginal people, whether they be slaves, servants, concubines, or day laborers.²⁴ As a result, these households were “largely self-sufficient in the producing of shelter, food, and raw materials for clothing and pottery.”²⁵ If there arose an excess in productivity, it would result in “cottage industries and a barter and even more expanded trade system by which needed products, such as food and pottery, but also luxury items could be obtained.”²⁶

The Valiant Woman, then, symbolizes someone who has mastered the art of flourishing in what, in her context, was the primary sphere of influence. The problem, then, arises when the interpreter assumed the particular practices which made a woman חָ֫יִל the 6^th century Persia B.C.E. are the same practices that make her worthy of that title today. Indeed, it is clear from even this cursory historical study such domestic skills symbolized something far different in the past than they do today. Contemporary 21^st-century American society does not have a household-based economy but a market economy. As a result, influence in the marketplace is thus set as the ideal to measure one’s power and agency economically and often socially as well. For better or worse, household work is simply taken to mean something different in contemporary times because it plays a different role in the overall scheme of culture and identity making.

The Valiant Woman is essentially someone who takes initiative to do important things. “She is not a pampered lady cared for by servants but instead engages in her own acts of labor and industry.”²⁷ Without translating culture, one might be at risk of saying the key message of the Valiant Woman is every woman ought to learn how to sew purple linen. However, when one is able to see the larger picture of the role this work played in ancient post-exilic Israel, the central idea becomes something much more culturally transcendent: to praise women who excel in roles of societal influence.

This widens rather than narrows the interpretive lens: certainly, stay-at-home moms with wonderful crafting skills could be considered Valiant Women today. However, interpreting culture as well as language allows for interpretations in which a CEO who has never cooked a day in her life can be equally praised for her status as a Valiant Woman. If one were to construct a modern-day portrait of a Valiant Woman based upon the same ethic of Proverbs 31, one might arrive at any number of different descriptions: “she directs her company without fear for the future, for she has carefully considered its budget,” “she teaches herself how to play guitar so she can entertain her friends,” or “she reads well into the night, for she wants to prepare well for her presentation.” Once that extra interpretive step is taken, this text is free to be what it is: a song of appreciation for the many ways in which women use their initiative and talents to better the world.

It bears repeating the main way in which this text has been used in Judaism is men singing the text to their wives in adoration on a regular basis. Throughout history, men have not used this passage as a checklist for wife-shopping, but as language to praise what their wives already do. It was never intended to be an impossible standard women must struggle to live up to generation after generation. Rather, it is an invitation for women to step back from their busy lives, relax, and allow themselves to be praised for the Valiant Women they are.

Endnotes

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

It is true contemporary debates over homosexuality in many Christian denominations focus less on arguments over specific Biblical passages and more on an overall Scriptural narrative, church tradition, or the value of experience in determining normative ethical judgments. Nonetheless, it remains true debate in some circles over the applicability of certain Pauline texts continues as a central aspect in the discussion over the ethicality of homosexuality. It is an issue that has and continues to divide Christian denominations, churches, and families. Especially for Protestant traditions that pride themselves on Scriptural authority, a thorough exegesis of Biblical passages referring to same-sex eroticism is central to determining the scope of Paul’s claims.

Although multiple passages of interest exist on the topic, in this paper I will limit my comments to Romans 1:18-32. This is arguably the most cited passage of contemporary Christians who claim it to be a clear condemnation of homosexual acts that extends to the present day. See the passage below:

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26-27, NRSV).

I have bolded the word “unnatural” because this Greek phrase “παρὰ  φύσιν” is key for the claim I wish to make in this paper. In contrast to those who would cite Romans 1:26-27 as a condemnation of homosexuality writ large applicable in contemporary Christianity, I will argue it is hermeneutically irresponsible to cite Paul as opposing homosexuality because he opposes same-sex eroticism on different grounds than do contemporary Christians (who cite the passage as a proof text of their own views) who oppose homosexuality. My goals are modest: I do not argue Paul would have been accepting, or even neutral, on the issue of homosexuality. What I will argue is simply to cite the verse as a proof text against homosexuality conceals the complex nature of Paul’s opposition to same-sex eroticism, which depends on elements of Jewish mythological narratives and Greco-Roman culture that many who cite the verses in this way would reject. In order to substantiate this claim, I will evaluate two different exegeses of the phrase “παρὰ  φύσιν” advanced by biblical scholars Dr. John Boswell and Dr. Richard Hays.

Boswell believes Paul’s talk of “nature” in Romans 1 is in reference to the specific, individual “natures” or “characters” of the Gentiles in question and the passage thus refers to heterosexuals engaged in same-sex eroticism as opposed to constitutional homosexuals. Hays counters this by arguing Paul links the Gentile idolatry and same-sex eroticism in such a way as to suggest both are rejections of God’s universal created order as represented in Genesis. Ultimately, I will agree with a third scholar, Dr. Dale Martin, who somewhat side-steps the exegetical question and takes up a hermeneutical one: stating Paul’s opposition to same-sex eroticism stems from entirely different considerations than modern-day Christian opposition to homosexuality. This is important for any hermeneutic of Romans 1 because of the ideological solidarity many Christians assume to have with Paul.

Some preliminary comments about the literary context of the passage in question are now in order. In order to understand how various scholars interpret Paul’s passage in Romans 1, a brief overview of the letter’s main themes and purpose for being written will be useful.

The Apostle Paul had not yet traveled to Rome at the time of his writing the Epistle to the Romans in 56-56 C.E. However, his growing influence in the Greco-Roman Christian world and reputation for counseling churches through ethnic and religious tensions lent him the authority to write this theological treatise to the Christians in Rome. Romans is the work of a developed theological mind, apparently written in response to tensions between Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles in Rome who were confused about how the coming of Jesus affected their relationship to the Mosaic law. Paul counsels the Romans that while the law had its purpose (namely, to reveal the universal human need for grace), the coming of Christ was a major turning point in salvific history. Now, salvation ought not to be understood as a result of meticulous keeping of the law, but as a free gift which comes through belief in Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Naturally, since Paul had not yet been introduced to the Roman Christians, he had to first find some way of establishing common ground with them. After the formulaic epistolary greeting, Paul runs a clever argument in Romans 1-3 that begins with a condemnation of the Gentile pagans in Rome. Importantly, he apparently thought this condemnation of the pagans to be something that would establish good rapport with both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles in Rome. Only later does he turn the tables and suggest the Roman Christians perhaps were not so holy themselves — what with all their stubborn insistence on strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and internal ethnic divisions. The purpose of Romans 1 is for Paul to use characteristically Pauline rhetorical strategies to liken his attitudes to those of the Romans, later using this to his advantage pastorally.

Dr. John Boswell argues in his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality “παρὰ  φύσιν” ought to be understood in the context of how Paul uses the phrase throughout his other letters. Whereas we in 21^st-century America tend to think of the natural/unnatural distinction in a way highly influenced by John Locke’s talk of “natural law,” in which “naturalness” and “goodness” are synonymous, Boswell indicates Paul did not have the same framework for these ideas (Boswell). One must be careful not to impose anachronistic categorizations on Paul, for whom “natural” was always to be understood as being possessed by someone or something — something individual (Boswell). Jews are Jews “by nature,” Gentiles are Gentiles “by nature” — but this sort of nature is one of personal character and not moral significance. Never did Paul discuss nature in the universal, abstract sense assumed in the modern West because of Lockean moral philosophy (Boswell).

For clues as to what meaning this term did hold for him, we might look to Romans 11:24, in which God is said to be acting “against nature” in His act of grafting the Gentiles into the olive tree (representing salvation). In this passage, “unnatural” certainly has the connotation of artificiality, in that Gentiles had not always shared the same position as Jews within God’s salvific plan. However, there is no suggestion this grafting, though unnatural, is morally degenerate. Far from it — it is presented as a loving act of God. Boswell summarizes the issue nicely: “‘Nature’ is not a moral force for Paul: men may be evil or good ‘by nature,’ depending on their own disposition” (Boswell).

Literary context is also important for Boswell in determining what Paul might have meant by the phrase “παρὰ  φύσιν.” Interestingly, the same-sex eroticism Paul discusses in verses 26 and 27 is linked to a general, hyperbolic sense of idolatry in verses 18-25. In fact, same-sex eroticism is described as a punishment for this idolatry as opposed to its cause. Paul describes how the Gentiles had the opportunity to recognize the one true God, since “ever since the creation of the world, his eternal power and divine nature … have been understood and seen throughout the things he has made” (Romans 1:20). Instead, they rejected monotheism and “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” (Romans 1:23). Boswell likens this as Paul stating the Gentiles’ rejection of their “true nature” in the same way later in the chapter he discusses the Gentiles who rejected their “true nature” as heterosexuals to engage in same-sex eroticism (Boswell).

The principle implication of this distinction is Paul was condemning heterosexuals engaging in same-sex eroticism, and thus made no comment whatsoever on truly homosexual persons. While some have criticized this view to impose anachronistic categories of orientation that would have been foreign to Paul, I do not think this is necessary for the success of Boswell’s argument (Hays 201). I argue not that Paul necessarily delineated between heterosexuality and homosexuality as orientations (for that depends, in part, of the popularity of myths like those of Aristophanes about the origins of same-sex desire, which is difficult to determine historically) (Hubbard 2). Rather, I contend his comments stem from a worldview that had very different ideas about same-sex eroticism than most people today: worldviews so different, in fact, that applying Paul’s comments about same-sex eroticism to modern notions of homosexuality as a biologically natural orientation is more closely eisegesis than exegesis.

However, Dr. Richard Hays looks doubtfully upon Boswell’s exegesis of “παρὰ  φύσιν,” claiming he dangerously confuses exegesis with hermeneutics. He believes Paul’s comments in Romans 1 are a clear condemnation of not only same-sex eroticism, but homosexuality writ large, and any suggestion otherwise is a wistful rejection of the “plain sense” of the text (Hays 196). The thrust of Hays’s argument is his insistence Paul’s condemnation of the pagan Gentiles’ same-sex eroticism is linked to their idolatry in such a way as to associate both with a rejection of God’s natural (morally right) created order. Whereas Boswell believes Paul could have just as easily chosen any other sin with which to rebuke the pagans, Hays maintains the mention of same-sex eroticism is key to Paul’s overall argument. As he states, “The passage is not merely a polemical denunciation of selected pagan vices, it is a diagnosis of the human condition” (Hays 200).

Hays believes in order to define “παρὰ  φύσιν,” one must be cognizant of the common trope of natural vs. unnatural in Greco-Roman moral philosophy. Indeed, although Paul certainly did not understand “natural law” in a strictly Lockean sense, it can be argued the conceptions he would have had from Greco-Roman moral philosophy are not as dissociated from morality as Boswell claims. Stoicism in particular provides a thorough framework for considering the “natural” (κατά φύσιν) vs. “unnatural” (παρὰ  φύσιν) distinction, in which “right moral action is closely identified with action κατά φύσιν” (Hays 192). While there were no equivalent words in Greek for “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” these phrases function with the same meaning. This is evidenced throughout the many Stoic texts cited by Hays that use the category to discuss the morally degenerate “unnatural” phenomenon of same-sex eroticism: most notably, Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch (Hays 192).

These same categories were adopted by Hellenistic Jewish philosophers, with whom Paul would likely have been even more familiar. Not only did they often associate actions “κατά φύσιν” and “παρὰ  φύσιν” with good and evil moral categories, but they did so on the basis of an appeal to Mosaic law. Both Josephus and Philo, Paul’s contemporaries, used “παρὰ  φύσιν” in this exact way (Hays 193). Thus, Hays would strongly contest Boswell’s assertion Paul refers to “nature” in a personalized, specific way to refer to the individual nature of the being in question. Instead, he would assert Paul is playing on categories of “natural” and “unnatural” present and recognized by his contemporaries as clear references to God’s original created order.

The language of “exchange” used in Romans 1:23, 25-26, therefore, carries great rhetorical power for Hays. It is what cements the link between same-sex eroticism and idolatry as both results of a rejection of God’s created order. Just as the pagan Gentiles “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” also did their women “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” (Romans 1:25-26). The idea is idolatry is a form of rejecting the order of creation — and this rejection of God as creator is the first major misstep that causes perversions in other areas of the created order as well. Thus, Hays believes Paul’s presumption must have been opposite-sex eroticism is the natural design for humankind.

A third scholar, Dr. Dale Martin, sees several problems with linking Paul’s discussion of idolatry and same-sex eroticism in such a way. Martin accuses Hays of lumping together idolatry and Adam’s fall through “Augustinian lenses,” which would equate the two, whereas Paul would not necessarily have done so (Martin 54). There is no evidence Paul considered Adam’s fall to be an act of idolatry in the same way as the idolatrous acts of the pagans are described in Romans 1 (Martin 52). In fact, Hays argues “Paul presupposes a Jewish mythological narrative about the origins of idolatry,” which would preclude it from occurring simultaneously with the fall (Martin 53). Here Martin cites various rabbinic sources attributing the origins of polytheism/idolatry to “Kenan, Enosh (son of Seth), or the people of Enosh’s generation” — well after the Fall (Martin 53).

Moreover, Martin sees Paul’s diatribe in Romans 1 as possessing another key element of these Jewish mythological narratives: namely, Jewish “decline of civilization” narratives that function in Greek, Roman, and Jewish circles as a means of explaining how Israel is “set apart” from the excessive immorality of the Gentiles (Martin 53). These stories trace Gentile immorality to some point in history at which they became polytheistic, rejecting the one true God and consequently venturing into sexual immorality and general moral corruption. Perhaps the most famous example of this in Judaism is in 1 Enoch, wherein the Genesis 6 account of the fall of the Watchers is expanded to account for Gentile immorality (Martin 53).

This is an attempt to refute Hays’s idea that in connecting idolatry and same-sex eroticism, Paul is implicitly claiming both are rejections of the created order resulting from Adam’s fall. Paul is operating within a different mythological narrative than the fall of man: the “decline of civilization” narrative regarding the origins of idolatry. Where Hays wants to conflate the two, Martin indicates their differences have important implications for any hermeneutic of Romans 1.

Additionally, when Paul makes allusions to the original created order elsewhere, such as later in Romans 5:12 when he speaks of the fall of Adam, he uses language from Genesis: “the fall,” “Adam,” “Eve,” and talking about general humanity as opposed to a specific group of people (Martin 52). Given this language is absent from Romans 1, and Paul would have likely seen idolatry as having origins separate from Adam’s fall, Martin believes nothing in Romans 1 is a gesture toward the created order. He thus believes interpretations of “παρὰ  φύσιν” like Hays’s hijack Paul’s conclusions while dismissing the premises of his arguments.

I find Martin’s arguments persuasive and believe they arise from an attitude toward Biblical hermeneutics that should be forwarded. The principle of examining the premises Paul uses for his argument and not merely taking his conclusions for granted is a noble one in Biblical scholarship. A responsible definition of Biblical authority ought to be one that honestly wrestles with the extent to which contextual and historical considerations come into play when taking moral judgments from ancient authors as authoritative. Far from a devaluation of Biblical authority, what this does is allow the Bible to be evaluated on its own terms. Only then can it be put into conversation with other forms of Christian revelation, namely, nature and experience.

Take for example another instance in Paul’s letters in which he makes a similar appeal to nature, 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15, NRSV).

Most contemporary Christians would reject Paul’s conclusions in this passage (a woman ought to either veil herself or cut off her hair, as per verse 6) because he begins with premises with which they would disagree. The sort of “nature” Paul discusses here may in fact be what he believes is the abstract, universal order of creation set by God in Genesis — but it is historically conditioned by strong views of male-female hierarchy in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Martin identifies within this hierarchy the “implicit devaluation of the feminine,” also a relevant factor when examining ancient attitudes toward same-sex eroticism (Martin 58).

In order to determine why Paul and his contemporaries might have seen same-sex eroticism as self-evidently “unnatural,” it is necessary to examine what role sexual orientation played in the opinions of the populace toward it. It is certain there were myths, like that of Aristophanes, which purported to explain homosexuality alongside heterosexuality as both naturally occurring phenomena. However, this was likely not the predominant view, and indeed, more influential philosophers rejected it (Loader 2). What can be constructed as historically probable is the attitude same-sex eroticism did not arise out of any biologically “natural” orientation, but was instead an extreme expression of heterosexual lust and/or gluttony. It is inordinate desire rather than disoriented desire (Boswell). Dio Chrysostom puts it this way:

The man whose appetite is insatiate in such things, when he finds there is no scarcity, no resistance, in this field, will have contempt for the easy conquest and scorn for a woman’s love, as a thing too readily given — in fact, too utterly feminine — and will turn his assault against the male quarters, eager to befoul the youth who will very soon be magistrates and judges and generals, believing that in them he will find a kind of pleasure difficult and hard to procure (Dio Chrysostom 7:151-52).

The naturalization of gendered hierarchy plays an unmistakable role in the attitudes of the ancients toward same-sex eroticism. For example, Plato agrees same-sex eroticism is “contrary to nature”: but on the grounds a man ought not be mounted “like cattle” (Moralia 751d). A similar justification is used in reference to exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6:9, in which the word “μαλακός,” literally meaning “soft.” is used in a derogatory way to refer to the submissive partner in same-sex male intercourse (Martin 44). In other words, it was the very parts of ancient Greco-Roman culture with which the modern world might most vehemently disagree that were the basis for common attitudes toward the ethicality of same-sex eroticism.

If a disruption of gendered hierarchy is also for Paul what makes same-sex eroticism unnatural, then any Christian who uses Romans 1 as a proof text against homosexuality must also adopt the ancient Greco-Roman ideas of gendered hierarchy in order to fully take Paul’s word as authoritative. In the same way a Christian might reject Paul’s instruction for women to be veiled on the basis of disagreeing with the principle that “nature itself” teaches it, so might a Christian reject Paul’s condemnation of same-sex eroticism on the basis he simply had no concept of homosexuality as a biologically natural orientation. The question also demands to be asked of what relevance is contemporary biological information that suggests homosexuality does contain a natural as well as an environmental component (Mondimore). If Paul operates under a biological paradigm no longer considered accurate, the effect this has on his ethical judgments which are based on such a paradigm is a serious question faced by those seeking to define Biblical authority in a responsible way.

If one is to be a responsible reader and interpreter of the Biblical text, one cannot evaluate Paul’s conclusions apart from the premises he uses to make his arguments. Because his opposition to same-sex eroticism is based on ancient Greco-Roman ideals of gendered hierarchy and an etiology of homosexuality with which modern biology would disagree, it is hermeneutically irresponsible to cite Paul as opposing homosexuality as distinct from merely same-sex eroticism. This is particularly the case if one believes, as Boswell and Martin both claim, “παρὰ  φύσιν” is Paul’s way of referring not to the created order in Genesis, but to the specific pagan Gentiles in question. Importantly, qualifying Paul’s comments in this way does not necessarily constitute a rejection of the authority of Paul: it is simply to recognize the limits of that authority. One might affirm he made authoritative conclusions based on the available information he had at the time while also affirming new information might alter our interpretation and/or application of his comments today.

Paul’s comments regarding same-sex eroticism in Romans 1 demand a response from contemporary Christian communities with a high view of Scripture. Just as they cannot be directly transplanted from the ancient Greco-Roman world that had no concept of a homosexual orientation, there are also problems with tossing them lightly aside as products of the past with no relevance to today. The work done by Biblical scholars balancing exegesis with hermeneutics is valid and necessary for this passage in particular. Debates over the ethicality of homosexuality will continue to rage within denominations and churches, but perhaps responsible Biblical scholarship can serve as a guiding light.

Works Cited

Boswell, John. “The Scriptures.” Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago and London: U of Chicago, 1980. Print.

Dio. Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U, 1993. Print.

DeYoung, Kevin. What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015.

The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. General Editor: Harold W. Attridge. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publisheres, 1989.

Hays, Richard B. “Relations natural and unnatural: a response to J Boswell’s exegesis of Rom 1.” Journal of Religious Ethics 14.1 (19860101): 184-.

Hubbard, Thomas K. Homosexuality In Greece and Rome : a Sourcebook of Basic Documents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

Loader, William. “Same-Sex Relationships: A 1^st-Century Perspective.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 70.1 (2014): 1-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Martin, Dale B. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality In Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.:  Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Mondimore, Francis Mark. A Natural History of Homosexuality. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.

Plutarch, and Grēgorios N. Vernardakēs. Moralia. Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1888.

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

The argument from design for the existence of God originally propounded by William Paley, also known as the teleological argument, was long thought to have been refuted by Darwin’s revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.  However, in recent years, a new form of this argument has arisen.  Instead of focusing on specific instances of apparent purposive design, this argument seeks to emphasize what biologist Thomas Huxley referred to as “wider teleology” (“Darwin”).  Although Huxley was himself a staunch evolutionist, sometimes even referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog” (“Briefly Noted”), he nevertheless admitted there exists a teleology left untouched by evolution (“Darwin”).  “Wider teleology” emphasizes the necessary conditions for the existence of a universe that could even theoretically permit intelligent life in the first place.  It is this “wider teleological” argument that leads me to the conclusion God exists.

In recent years, the scientific community has been stunned by the sheer amount of complexity and sensitivity of the conditions necessary for the origin and evolution of life on earth.  In order for intelligent carbon-based life to even have the possibility of existing, it is dependent upon a delicate balance of both physical and cosmological factors.  For example, scientist G. J. Withrow found in 1955 life would be possible only in a universe with exactly three dimensions (“Teleological Argument”).  Our laws of chemistry and physics are entirely dependent upon dimensionality, and those laws provide many of the pre-existing conditions necessary for intelligent life.

Moreover, certain physical constants in the universe must be exactly as they are to permit life, namely, the four fundamental forces of gravity, the weak force, the strong force, and electromagnetism (“Teleological Argument”).  There is no scientifically necessary reason why these forces have these specific constants assigned to them rather than other constants; they simply happen to possess values such that life is permitted.  For example, if the constant of the strong force were increased by a mere 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered nearly all carbon would be burned into oxygen (“Teleological Argument”).  Changes in electromagnetism by a sheer one part in 10^40 would result in the inability of stars like our sun to develop (“Teleological Argument”).  Examples of fine-tuning in this area are too numerous to count, including the ratio between the mass of protons and that of neutrons, the cosmological constant (the amount of dark energy in the universe), and the density of the universe (“Teleological Argument”).  Even the rate at which the universe expands is exquisitely fine-tuned such that if altered in the slightest degree, it would make intelligent life impossible (“Teleological Argument”).

A possible objection to this argument would be to assert that although fine-tuning is required for the existence of intelligent human life, perhaps, given any number of different sets of physical constants and arbitrary quantities, different forms of life might have arisen.  While it is true we may be able to imagine life in other possible universes, we can’t imagine life in just any other possible universe.  The concept of life is, by its very nature, complex.  Everything that is alive must die at some point in the finite future, and thus, the conditions necessary for survival of a particular life form must be fine-tuned.  In a world in which there were an extremely high amount of universes, the complex nature of life demands the set of life-permitting universes be extremely small.  Thus, we can conclude that any universe which would permit life would still possess significant fine-tuning due to the vast improbability of its occurrence.  It cannot be reasonably denied these are examples of apparent design left untouched by Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig proposes three possible explanations for this “wider teleology” of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design.

One possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is what Craig refers to as physical necessity, the idea the universe must necessarily be life-permitting due to a sort of “theory of everything” that would unify the various physical constants.  Surely, on its face, this alternative seems highly implausible.  One can imagine all sorts of possible universes in which the initial conditions were slightly modified as to prohibit the existence of intelligent human life.  Not only is there no evidence for this explanation, but we have good reason to reject it as well.

Included in the fine-tuning of the universe are certain arbitrary quantities in addition to the aforementioned physical constants not governed by any physical law.  That is to say, even if the laws of physics were other than what they are, these quantities would not be affected.  These quantities are in fact simply “put in” as boundary conditions upon which the physical laws of nature operate.  For example, we have the amount of entropy, or the measurement of “disorder” in the universe, as well as its density and initial speed of expansion (“Teleological Argument”).  Even if there were a sort of “theory of everything” which was able to unify the various laws of nature into one explanation, the need for the fine-tuning with respect to these fundamental arbitrary quantities would remain (“Teleological Argument”).

Even still, any “theory of everything” with the complex ability to unite the physical constants could itself be seen as a supreme instance of fine-tuning (“Teleological Argument”).  For example, the most plausible candidate for such a unified theory is known as string theory, which postulates all of nature is reducible to tiny, vibrating strings.  However, scientists have concluded this theory can only work in a world composed of exactly eleven dimensions (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  Thus, although string theory explains certain instances of fine-tuning, by invoking it we automatically incur a need for a new kind of geometrical fine-tuning.  Therefore, the idea of the universe’s fine-tuning being explained by physical necessity is not only implausible on its face but also severely lacking in support from scientific evidence.

A second possible and perhaps more common explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that of chance.  This view posits the various constants and quantities in the universe simply happen by sheer accident to be within the infinitesimally microscopic range of permitting life.  Initially, the problem with this is the odds against a life-permitting universe forming by chance alone are so incomprehensibly great they cannot be reasonably faced.  While it is true anything is possible, the philosopher ought to be concerned not with possibility but with reasonability; we ought to determine what is the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

Furthermore, this problem cannot be overcome by the atheist who claims improbabilities happen.  While this is certainly true, there is a factor at play here beyond sheer improbability that makes the chance explanation so implausible.  The universe’s fine tuning does not only possess improbability, but specified improbability.  It conforms to an independently given pattern, namely, that which permits the existence of intelligent human life (“Teleological Argument Pt. 1”).

To illustrate, imagine finding a chimpanzee typing away at a computer.  Upon approaching further, you find mere gibberish on the screen and rightly do not conclude the random string of letters is the result of any sort of intelligent design.  Suppose, however, upon entering you found the chimp was actually typing out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.  At that point you would be reasonable to conclude there was some sort of intelligence involved, even though the two strings of letters produced were equally as improbable (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  The difference lies in whether an improbability is specified, and in the case of the universe, the fact intelligent life is permitted entails specificity.  In other words, our universe isn’t just any old universe; rather, it is one that allows for intelligent human life.

One way the atheist could surmount this difficulty is with what is known as the anthropic principle, which posits we ought to not be surprised to observe a life-permitting universe, since if the universe were not finely tuned, we would not be here to be surprised about it (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  While it is true we should not be surprised not to observe conditions which are incompatible with our existence, it would be a leap of logic to then assert we ought not to be surprised to observe conditions which are compatible with our existence.  The statement simply does not follow logically.

To illustrate, consider a second scenario in which one is brought before a group of 100 trained marksmen who each aim to shoot him.  If each one missed, he would not be justified in saying “I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to be alive!  After all, if I had been shot, I wouldn’t be here to be surprised!” (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  Rather, a proper response would entail surprise at the fact of the enormous improbability of each of the marksmen missing their target.  Such is the case with the universe.  We are justified in being surprised at our own existence because of the vast improbability of a life-permitting universe.

However, an emerging metaphysical hypothesis has added a twist to the analogy of the trained marksmen in an effort to refute the theory of design.  Imagine that same scenario, only with the addition when one opens his eyes to see he is alive, he discovers there are 100 other people lying dead around him.  He is no longer surprised to see himself alive, he simply considers himself lucky to have been the one who, by chance alone, was not shot (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  This is what is being propounded by what many call the theory of “the world ensemble” or the multiverse.  The idea is by positing an extremely high or infinite number of universes, by chance alone there would happen to be a universe that would “survive the shooting of the marksmen” and overcome the vast improbability to permit intelligent life.  However, there are three key reasons why the theory of the multiverse is unsuccessful in removing the need for a designer.

If we apply here the methodological principle known as Ockham’s razor, which states causes ought not to be posited beyond necessity, the design theory is a better explanation because it is simpler.  It seems a more reasonable reaction to attribute fine-tuning to a fine-tuner, rather than mere chance.  To posit an infinite number of universes simply in an effort to explain away the fine-tuning of our particular universe rather than simply choose belief in God is to posit a more complex cause than is necessary.

One would never make this sort of inference to chance in daily life.  If while walking alone the beach, one found a watch in the sand, he would be much more likely to attribute it to some sort of intelligence than to shout, “I shouldn’t be surprised to find this!  After all, in this infinite multiverse of ours, there’s bound to be some universe in which this watch assembles through natural processes!”  Clearly, the design hypothesis is a better explanation when judging on the criterion of simplicity propounded by Ockham’s razor.

In response to this, the atheist may point out the idea of a maximally great being entails great complexity.  While it is true that God, if he exists, is certainly a complex sort of being, that is very different from stating he is a complex explanation.  For example, in the scenario of finding a watch, it would be a simpler explanation to attribute it to a human rather than mere chance, even though the actual human being is extremely complex.

In addition, positing a multiverse as an explanation for fine-tuning does not advance our understanding of the world and our place within it the same way the design hypothesis does.  We cannot understand much more about our universe by simply asserting it to be the product of mere chance in a world ensemble of universes.  However, the design hypothesis could reveal to us great understanding about the meaning and purpose of our universe.

Secondly, there is simply no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory.  It is no more “scientific” than the design theory (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  In fact, it is not even the sort of thing that could ever possibly be empirically proven.  Science, for all its capabilities, simply by definition cannot reach beyond the boundaries of our universe.  However, a key difference between the two theories lies in the fact while there is independent evidence for the existence of a divine designer, such as the cosmological and ontological arguments, there is nothing but sheer guesswork to support the existence of the multiverse.  Again, it is the task of the philosopher not to confuse himself with every possible explanation, but to determine what is the most reasonable inference.  From a strictly evidential point of view, the design hypothesis is a better explanation.

Finally, even if the existence of the multiverse could somehow be proven, it still would not alleviate the need for a fine-tuner.  One of the most compelling examples of this “wider teleology” sort of fine-tuning is the constant for the rate of expansion of matter (“Teleological Argument”), which would still be in play even given a multiverse.  Thus, attempts to explain the multiverse do not get rid of fine-tuning, they merely push it further back.

After ruling out the possible explanations of physical necessity and chance to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, there is only one option left: design.  One may not always be pleased with where the evidence leads, but in order to maintain intellectual honesty, he must follow it.  The sheer complexity and intricacy of the physical constants and arbitrary quantities of our universe cry out for an explanation that atheism cannot reasonably satisfy.  We must go where the evidence leads us, therefore, and conclude that belief in the existence of God is justified by this argument.

Works Cited

Craig, Dr. William Lane. “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle”. Leader.com. N.p., 8 November 2005. Web. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 1).” The Defenders Podcast. 23 September 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 2).” The Defenders Podcast. 1 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 1 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 3).” The Defenders Podcast. 8 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

Lennox, James. “Darwin Was a Teleologist.” Faculty.arts.ubc.ca. N.p, N.d. Web. 11 October 2012.

Oakes, Edward. “Briefly Noted 56.” Firstthings.com. N.p., October 2003. Web. 11 October 2012.

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.”

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

There exist a plethora of passages in the Bible about slavery and how it should be done. Jesus never condemns the act itself, and often gives rules for how it should occur, so it seems like it’s being advocated as moral! Here is the result of my personal research on the subject.

I first want to mention that since the culture the Old Testament was written in was so different from ours today, we have to interpret it as such. We cannot read passages about slavery and assume that the concept was exactly the same thousands of years ago. In order to see if the slavery of that culture was comparable to 19th century American/European version, we have to determine why slavery existed, how people entered into slavery, and how they were treated.

In the 19th century, slavery existed so the masters could have a better life through economic gain, but in the ancient civilization it was for the benefit of the slaves- to pay off their debt, for their OWN economic relief!

Hence Leviticus 25:35-37: “Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. Do not take usurious interest from him, but revere your God, that your countryman may live with you. You shall not give him your silver at interest, nor your food for gain. If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers.”

The last part of that passage leads into the next difference between the cultures in which slavery existed- in our day slavery is mandatory, and people are taken into captivity and forced to work without pay or possibility of freedom. In this ancient civilization the path into slavery was varied, and in many cases voluntary.

People who needed assistance with their debt may have turned to a form of voluntary servitude to get by, but the Bible had specific rules about them having to be released after their debt was paid, meaning their work was voluntary and for their own benefit.

Hence Deuteronomy 15:12-15.  :If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.”

Also, there were very strict Biblical laws preventing Hebrews from holding their fellow citizens as slaves against their will, or harming them:

Deuteronomy 24:7: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Exodus 21:20: “And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.”

The slaves in this culture were treated like family. How often were slaves in our culture were given fine foods and wine to enjoy like in Deuteronomy 15, and treated like family? This is completely different from what we see in 19th century America.

Slaves also had the right to purchase their freedom by simply paying their debt, or having it paid by their family:

Leviticus 25:47-49: “Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger’s family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him.”

If slaves were not treated properly by their masters, they could be set free.

Exodus 21:26-27: “And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.”

There really is little in common between the two versions of slavery. Of course Jesus never condemned slavery- as it was laid out in the Old Testament! But obviously the purpose of slavery, methods of entering into it, and treatment of slaves were completely different back then. There is therefore no connection to the idea of Jesus advocating the morality of slavery in our culture!