A Response to the Mormon View of Scripture(Part 2)

2.      IS THE BOOK OF MORMON RELIABLE?

            Sean and Ben, you guys asked me why I will not consider praying according to Moroni 10:4-5 about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not? Let me pose this question: “If a Muslim were to ask you to pray about the truthfulness of the Koran, would you do so?” For the same reason, I do not need to pray about the Book of Mormon because the Lord has already revealed to me that it isn't true. How has God revealed that to me? Of course, through His Word (see 2 Cor. 11:2-4; Gal. 1:6-9). Sometimes Mormon missionaries will cite James 1:5 in relation to Moroni 10:4-5 in praying about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not. It is important to note that James 1:5 does not tell us to pray about whether the Book of Mormon is true. The context which James is teaching in this passage is about praying to God for wisdom in trials.

            Now as for my reasons on why I will not consider praying about whether the Book of Mormon is true or not will become apparent in my examples given below.

First, I would like to begin by stating what the prophet Joseph Smith said about the supposed reliability of the Book of Mormon. “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church 4:461). If this is true, why then has there been over four thousand changes to the Book since it was first published in 1830?

To be fair, I went to the Bringham Young University home website (BYU) to see what I could find on the above question. I could not find anything. So I consulted some old notes I printed off from the website dated back in Friday February 24, 2006. There, I found the supposed answer to my question above.  I tried typing in the old address written on the top of the printed pages I have. It would not take me there. So I personally went to the BYU website. The only thing I could find was the “FARMS Review.” A journal that deals with theological issues. Still, I could not find what I was looking for. Anyway, I will draw from the old notes I got from the website from a few years ago.

            To start with, the seven pages of questions and answers I got from the BYU website are all “Untitled” and do not give the author's name who answers the questions. However, I do have the address to where I got the notes from, even though now it appears obsolete. Nevertheless, I will give it to prove where I had gotten it.[1]

            On the third page of the notes, the answer to my question above begins with the question I am asking.

“Joseph Smith declared that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth” (History of the Church 4:461). If this were so, why have there been over four thousand changes to the Book since it was first published in 1830?”

            The unknown author opens up his answer with this revealing statement, “Correctness need not refer to the translation, the grammar, or the spelling, only to the content, notably the doctrine.” What the author is saying here is that “correctness” primarily refers to the “content, notably the doctrine,” and not to the translation, grammar, or the spelling.  So even if the translation, grammar, or the spelling is wrong. Correctness in the Book of Mormon specifically refers to its “content, notably the doctrine.” And to think that the author would have us believe that the “doctrine” contained in the Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book on earth?” The very doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon is contingent on the “content” of the very “translation” of the Book of Mormon itself. So if the translation is wrong, then we can be certain that its doctrine will be wrong as well. The doctrines of the Book of Mormon either stand or fall on the “correctness” of the translation itself. The author is wrong to say that the “correctness” of the Book of Mormon primarily depends on its “doctrines” and not on the “translation” itself. The truth of the matter is that the very foundation of the Book of Mormon depends on its translation!

            The author, later in his article,  puts to question the reliability of the Book of Mormon when he writes, “The Book of Mormon itself indicates that it may contain errors made by the men who wrote it (Title Page; 1 Nephi 19:6; Jacob 1:2; 7:26; Mormon 8:1, 17; 9:31-33; 3 Nephi 8:2; Ether 5:1). Since Joseph Smith must have known about these statements, his declaration of correctness could not have meant that the book had no failings whatsoever.” Then the author goes on to quote Joseph Smith's declaration in History of the Church 4:461. Then the author emphasizes Joseph's phrase, “abiding by[the] precepts” as the main context of the Book of Mormon. He then concludes by saying “it is clear that he was speaking about its teachings rather than its language or history.” Again, the author would have us blindly trust the “teachings” of the Book of Mormon, even if its “language or history” is wrong. If the Book of Mormon's “language or history” is wrong, how can we possibly trust its teaching? Besides, it does not change the fact that Joseph Smith did say the Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book on earth.”

                                                                     

Secondly, Sean you alluded to the ancient ruins in both Americas and the American Indians as archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. You commented, “The best evidence out there containing evidence to the Book of Mormon is the ancient ruins found in the Americas of the ancient inhabitants. We believe these ruins come from the Lamanites, who were the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” There is no substantial proof for this claim. There is an interesting article I had read in last years “Easter Edition” of The Newfoundland Herald, entitled: “Is DNA Altering our History?” This article, though secular, puts into question the historical basis for the ancient peoples of the Book of Mormon. Below, I quote a large portion from this article to make my point.

“However, there are new questions being raised about the origin of North America's native Indian tribes. Recent DNA research has uncovered some startling information that has shaken belief into the well-known religion known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, also known as Mormonism.

That DNA research confirms what anthropologists have been saying for nearly as many years, that Native Americans are originally from Siberia and Polynesians from Southeast Asia.

The Book of Mormon has long claimed to present a history of the people of ancient America. According to the text, there were three migrations from the Middle East to America. The first was in about 2,200 BC when the Jaredites came away from the Tower of Babel. The next migration about 600 BC, leaving from Jerusalem under the leadership of Lehi and Nephi. This second migration of Israelites from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is of major importance. These Israelites are considered the ancestors of the American Indians.

However, new DNA research has found that there are many problems associated with this claim.

Indians have come under much study by anthropologists and are recognized as belonging to the Mongoloid (Asiatic) characteristics are to be found amongst those countries and peoples bordering the Pacific Ocean, particularly those from Eastern Asia.

Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Southerton is also a scientist and, in the late 1990's, did medical and biological studies, focusing on molecular genetics. With his Mormon background, he became very interested in recent research on the DNA of American Indians, as he did more research into the subject, his faith was questioned.

As Southerton studied the scientific evidence, the clearer became the contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the DNA evidence for alternative historical realities. Further research discovered a statement published by the Washington based Smithsonian Institution, which shocked him as a Mormon bishop and as a scientist.

“The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.”

*****************************************************

When Southerton investigated the DNA evidence further, he points out that there are problems that were unanswered.

“In the last decade, scientists from several research groups had tested the mitochondrial DNA of over 2,000 American Indians from about a hundred tribes scattered over the length of the Americas. It soon became apparent to me that about 99 per cent of their female lineages were brought into the Americas in excess of 12,000 years ago,” he points out in the article entitled DNA Genealogies of American Indians and the Book of Mormon. “Almost all of these lineages are most closely related to those of people in Asia, particularly in southern Siberia near Mongolia. Several tribes in Mesoamerica (which included Aztecs and Mayans) had been tested and all but a couple of individuals out of about 500 had mitochondrial DNA of Asian origin. The small fraction of Native American lineages that were not from Asia appeared to originate in Europe, most likely Spain. DNA studies also showed that the female ancestors of the Polynesians came from South East Asia and not the Americas.  Y-chromosome studies, which trace male migrations, strongly support the mitochondrial work, except that the European influence is higher (about 10 per cent in the Americas). Obviously, this research of Southerton's affected the belief of him into the teachings of his religion.

“All the problems I had been struggling with evaporated when I reached one simple conclusion. As much as I wanted the Book of Mormon to be true, I suddenly knew it wasn't,” he points out in the 2004 article. “It might be full of some remarkable stories and scriptural writings, but it wasn't history about real people. My belief in the Book of Mormon was the foundation for my belief in Mormonism. When it was shattered it brought a lot down with it.”[2]

       

            As we can see from the comments in the article above, this poses quite a problem for the Mormon Church to resolve. How can I personally trust the Book of Mormon if I cannot trust its history?

Thirdly, there are some problems I have come across in the Book of Mormon. They primarily deal with some of the passages of scripture in the Book of Mormon. Below, I have sought to document a handful of problem texts.

1.      Ether 2:16-25: Why would the Lord give instructions to Jared on building barges and forget about the need for ventilation and light? Jared even had to help God out.

2.      Ether 3:14: The phrase, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.” speaks here of the heresy of modalism. Modalism teaches the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are simply three modes of manifestation as opposed to three persons in the one Godhead. However, in the above Mormon scripture under consideration, we have two modes of manifestation, “I am the Father and the Son.” (See also Mosiah 15:3).

3.      Ether 15:19-31: This is one of the craziest supposed historical battles I have ever read! Twice for emphasizes we read of Coriantumr cutting off the head of Shiz. Yet, we read in verse 31 that after Shizes' head was severed, he “raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.” I am sorry to inform you, that you cannot struggle for breath without a mouth, let alone without a head!

4.      Alma 7:10: This verse here teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ was born in “Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,..” This of course contradicts what the Bible states about where Christ was born. The Lord Jesus was “born in Bethlehem of Judaea” (Matt. 2:1; see also Micah 5:2) not the supposed land of Jerusalem. To suggest that the supposed land of Jerusalem includes Bethlehem is false. The context of the Scripture does not teach that. Also, why this portion of Alma is dated 83 BC. This is 83 years before the birth of Christ.

5.      Mosiah 15:4-5: I believe the Book of Mormon supports the trinity in some of its passages of scripture. This is quite evident in the scripture text before us. The phrase in verse 4, “they are one God” makes this clear. The word “they” refers to more than one person. Yet “they” are “one God,” not three separate Gods as you would have me believe. Verse 5 further confirms this in these words “being one God.”  The term “being” refers to substance, not purpose. (See also Alma 11:22, 26-33, 44; 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:23-27).

6.      2 Nephi 31:8, 10: Why do these verses allude to the Lord Jesus, when not even one verse in the Old Testament ever mentions the name “Jesus” prophetically?

7.      1 Nephi 22:20: Why did the writer of the Book of Mormon quote from Acts 3:22-23, when he was supposed to be quoting from Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19; 1 Nephi 19:23?

In conclusion, these are but a mere handful of many problems to be found in the Book of Mormon. So as we can see from my three points on the question “Is the Book of Mormon Reliable?” The answer is that the Book of Mormon is deficient in its correctness, historical/archaeological, and in its scriptural reliability.

  

            Sean and Ben, I believe in being honest and true to God's Word, and that is what I endeavored to do just that. I don't have all the answers; for I am still learning in my walk with God. I genuinely care about you guys as friends. This is why I hope what I have written here in these pages will be of some help to you guys. Please feel free to critique and research further what I have written in these pages. If you feel I am wrong, please feel free to prove that to me. Till then, all the best,

Sincerely:

Jerry Sheppard.     

---

[1]    The website is BYU>FARMS>Questions/Evidences of the week. (I believe the address is in all small letters, instead of capitals).

[2]    The Staff, The Newfoundland Herald, (March 23-29, 2008), pgs. 16-18.