While the jury is still out, there are a number of North American Indian traditions which recount legends of giant stiff-legged beasts which would never lie down, had a big head and large leaf-like ears, round footprints, forward-bending knees, and had a fifth appendage coming out of its head.
There are at least two possible resolutions to the “horse” problem in the Book of Mormon: (1) definitions were expanded to include new meanings and (2) horses were present but their remains have not been found.
The Book of Mormon has frequently been charged with containing numerous anachronistic items including certain animals, plants, metals, textiles, and weapons. In all instances, however, there is the possibility that (a) such things were once in the Americas but the evidence has either disappeared or has not yet been found, or (b) Book of Mormon labels are based on the re-labeling of New World items with familiar Old World labels. To claim that things did not exist because they have not been found is to commit the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance or silence. According to a famous and generally accepted archaeological dictum, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Even many years later, after Rigdon had apostatized from the Church, he denied ever having seen the Book of Mormon until it was introduced to him by the Mormon missionary Parley P. Pratt. Somehow the Spalding manuscript was lost and then resurfaced in 1884 in a pile of papers belonging to a man who had bought Howe’s business. Examining Spalding’s actual novel proved that the Mormons had been right all along; any similarities between the manuscript and the Book of Mormon were superficial.
Christian Courage at Temple Square
by Stephen O. Smoot
As a volunteer with the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR)1, I was particularly impressed by Elder Robert D. Halesʼ October 2008 General Conference talk2. In his talk, Elder Hales admonished the Saints to respond to criticisms and challenges from critics and other foes of the Church by exhibiting what he called “Christian courage”; namely, we should “not retaliate” against our critics, but instead “show forth His love, which is the only power that can subdue the adversary and answer our accusers without accusing them in return.”3 Elder Hales went on to clarify that “especially important [are] our interactions with members of other Christian denominations. Surely our Heavenly Father is saddened—and the devil laughs—when we contentiously debate doctrinal differences with our Christian neighbors.”4 Thus, Elder Hales cautioned, “our primary concern must be othersʼ welfare, not personal vindication. Questions and criticisms give us an opportunity to reach out to others and demonstrate that they matter to our Heavenly Father and to us. Our aim should be to help them understand the truth, not defend our egos or score points in a theological debate.”5
In my experience as a volunteer with FAIR, I have had several opportunities both in person and on various online message boards and chat rooms to engage with critics of the Church and its teachings. These experiences have been interesting, exciting, uplifting, faith-promoting, frustrating, irritating, and disheartening simultaneously. While I have learned much from engaging with critics of the Church and my testimony in the Restored gospel has grown stronger with my experience with FAIR, I have at times come away from these interactions in a bad temper or exceedingly vexed. Usually it is after I have been vigorously Bible-bashing or contending with a heated ego and temper against someone who is as equally sure of their convictions as I am of mine. Thus, these words from Elder Hales have been very important to me as I have interacted with critics and skeptics. They remind me of how I must react to critics and skeptics the same way the Savior would - with love and understanding that even those critics who I debate with are children of our Heavenly Father who have their right to their free will and agency.
However, one particular moment has always stood out above others to me as an example of how I was able to exhibit Christian courage in the face of adversity and skepticism. Every six months at General Conference, I travel down to Temple Square with a couple of my fellow volunteers from FAIR to speak with and engage the anti-Mormon street preachers who try pester and provoke the Saints with unsavory epithets, distasteful slurs and repugnant accusations against the leadership and doctrines of the Church. During the April 2009 General Conference, I met a man at Temple Square, an Evangelical Christian with a large poster who was there to, according to his own account, “witness” to the Saints, with whom I began to speak with.
This man informed me that he was a former member of the Church who discontinued believing in the Restored Gospel. When I asked him why, he stated that he came to believe that the doctrines of the Church were not compatible with the Bible. After listing some examples, such as the unique understanding of the Godhead that the Saints hold to compared to conventional Christianity, this man then began to ask me various questions designed to challenge my faith in the Restored Gospel: How can you believe in the Book of Mormon when there is no evidence for its authenticity? Are you aware that the LDS view of the nature of God is not at harmony with the Bible? How can you believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet even after he uttered false prophecies? The Bible makes itself clear that it is the sole source of authority. How, then, can you accept additional scriptures?
I could tell that my non-confrontational approach to these accusations had made an impact on this gentleman, as he seemed to open up and began asking questions that were not so much aggressive but genuinely sincere and thoughtful. He asked me what I thought about Jesus Christ. I responded that my faith is in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world. He asked how I knew this. I responded that my testimony came from reading the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the prophets therein.
I could tell that because our encounter did not turn into a vindictive and egotistical debate but instead became a sincere and friendly discussion, I was more easily able to share my testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ with this man. Because of the fact that the spirit of contention was unable to penetrate the atmosphere, the Spirit of our Heavenly Father was able fill both our hearts and plant within them peace. We ended our conversation with good feelings towards each other and the spirit radiating within us.
This demonstration has shown me that Elder Halesʼ principles taught in his General Conference speech are true, and that by abiding by these precepts when we encounter criticism and skepticism we can hopefully escape the spirit of the contention and do our best to stand firm in our faith and our testimonies as we bear witness of the truth. We will all ultimately face criticism. We will all be asked questions about our faith from both sincere and insincere people. It is therefore imperative that we as Latter-day Saints remember to exhibit Christian courage in the face of adversity and affliction and to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9).
1 FAIR operates a website, www.fairlds.org, that is an online cache of apologetic information. Apologetics,
from the Greek apologia (απολογία), is a systematic defense of a particular doctrine or idea. See, for
example, the remarks of the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:15, wherein the Saints are admonished "to make a
defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (Revise Standard Version,
emphasis added).
2 Elder Robert D. Hales, “Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship,” Ensign, Nov. 2008, 72-75
3 Ibid, 73.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 While a large corpus of literature has been written on this subject, see generally Donald W. Parry, Daniel
C. Peterson and John W. Welch, eds., Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah:
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 2001), Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon
Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research
and Mormon Studies. 1997) and Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on
Ancient Origins (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 1982). See also the
plethora of articles published in the FARMS Review and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, both
produced by FARMS.
7 See generally David L. Paulsen, “Divine Embodiment: The Earliest Christian Understanding of God,” in
Early Christians in Disarray: Contemporary LDS Perspectives on the Christian Apostasy, ed., Noel B.
Reynolds (Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. 2005), 239-295. See also
the FAIR wiki website under the category “God” at http://en.fairmormon.org/
FAIRwiki:Table_of_contents#God (Accessed June 29th, 2009).
8 See generally John A. Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets”. Available online at http://www.fairlds.org/
Bible/Nature_of_Prophets_and_Prophecy.html (Accessed June 29th, 2009).
9 See generally Michael R. Ash, “Is the Bible Complete?”, available at http://www.fairlds.org/
FAIR_Brochures/Is_the_Bible_Complete.pdf (Accessed June 29th, 2009). See also the FAIR wiki article
“Open Canon vs. Closed Canon” at http://en.fairmormon.org/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon (Accessed
June 29th, 2009).
Just like the Bible, right? While it is true that there have been many changes in the Book of Mormon - something that I covered in my response to Matt Slick - there have also been thousands of changes in the Bible. How the author can criticize the Book of Mormon for textual changes and still hold to a view of biblical inerrancy is simply amazing to me.
It is also interesting how the author knows that most Mormons would be "shocked" if they saw the changes in the Book of Mormon. Perhapse he graduated with a degree from the Fawn M. Brodie Institute of Psychology and can therefore read the minds of "most" Mormons. Or perhaps he is simply using an irresponsible hyperbolic straw man attack on the Latter-day Saints. I personally vouch for the latter.
The question of archaeological remains at the Battle of Cumorah is an interesting one, and has been discussed by Latter-day Saint scholars John E. Clark and David Palmer[8]. First, it needs to be understood that the Cumorah of upstate New York is not the same as the Cumorah recorded in the Book of Mormon. The former was first called "Cumorah" by W. W. Phelps in 1833 and became associated with the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon by early Latter-day Saints. That the Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is not the same as the hill in upstate New York can be determined by the text of the Book of Mormon itself. Mormon 6:6 records that all of the records except the ones given to Moroni were hid in Cumorah, while Moroni took care of the plates eventually given to Joseph Smith and buried later.
Furthermore, Brant Gardner has this to offer in refutation of the claim that the lack of archaeological evidence for this (and other) battle(s) in the Book of Mormon is detrimental to its claims of historicity:
The Illusion: War plays an important part in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Old World archaeology has found remnants of battles at certain cities where vast numbers of arrowheads have been found. In contrast, the New World does not have similar evidence. The narrator tells us: “The footnotes in the Book of Mormon suggest that the Lamanite extermination of the Nephites took place around 400 ad. Yet, it left no archaeological evidence. By contrast, a much smaller battle that happened centuries earlier in the first century ad in Palestine demonstrates what one can expect to find if a battle like the one described in the Book of Mormon had really occurred.”
The Unmasking: When one is looking for evidence of a battle, it is essential to dig at the location where the battle took place. A known historical siege took place at Masada (the first-century site mentioned in the film). Digging at that location is digging at a battle site.
What about the Book of Mormon battles? Most of the Book of Mormon battles take place on open fields, not in cities. Since the archaeological excavations concentrate on the cities, it is not very surprising that the remnants of large battles are not found there, where they did not happen. That does not mean, however, that the battles did not happen. The Aztecs fought tremendous battles, but archaeologists have not yet located great battlefields littered with bodies or artifacts. Yet the Aztecs lived much later than Book of Mormon times. Once again, the authors of the film use a general problem from all of Mesoamerica and presume that it has specific meaning for the Book of Mormon. The lack of remnants of a battle for the Nephites no more means that there were no Nephites than the lack of evidence for Aztec battles means that there were no Aztecs. This argument is another demonstration that the film's experts are not expert in the issues of Mesoamerican archaeology.
The Cumorah Illusion: The film attempts to make it appear that Latter-day Saints are afraid to do archaeological excavations at the New York Hill Cumorah because they know that they will not find the evidence of battles there. Murphy attempts to strengthen this problem: “Growing up Mormon, I was always taught that the Hill Cumorah was the location of the culminating events of the Book of Mormon.”
The Unmasking: I do not doubt that Murphy might have been taught at some age by someone that the Hill Cumorah was the hill of the Book of Mormon. I was taught the same thing. However, since at least the 1950s Latter-day Saint scholarship on the Book of Mormon has argued that the text's Cumorah is in Mesoamerica. The New York hill is merely a namesake. Why do we not find evidence of the final battles at the New York hill? Because those battles happened thousands of miles away. It is not surprising to find nothing when you look for something in the wrong place. [9]
There are other problems with the Book of Mormon. For example, critics of Mormonism
have shown convincing proof that the Book of Mormon is a synthesis of earlier works
(written by other men), of the vivid imaginings of Joseph Smith, and of simple
plagiarisms of the King James Bible.
If this is the case, then the good folks at Catholic Answers are under the obligation to
inform the Latter-day Saints of just what this “convincing proof” is. What other works has
the Book of Mormon “synthesized” from? Catholic Answers does not tell us. And just
how “vivid” were Joseph Smith’s “imaginings”? (Furthermore, how does the writer at
Catholic Answers know this? Is he or she a mind reader like the amazing Fawn Brodie
of No Man Knows My History fame?) Catholic Answers gives us nothing but sweeping
and triumphant assertions (that are as hollow as a rotten log) without any evidence[10].
As for the simple plagiarisms from the King James Bible, it should first be realized that
the Book of Mormon gives clear credit to Isaiah and the other biblical Prophets quoted,
so plagiarism is not even the right technical term. Furthermore, the fact that the Book of
Mormon is a translation means that we should expect Joseph Smith (who was familiar
with King James phraseology) as a translator to be work with King James language and
biblical phraseology as he crafted his translation.
Scholars now know the Textus Receptus contains errors, which means the King James
Version contains errors. The problem for Mormons is that these exact same errors show
up in the Book of Mormon.
Latter-day Saint scholars have long dealt with the supposed “textual problems” in the
Book of Mormon, including those that supposedly come from the Book of Mormon’s
cribbing from the KJV[11].
It seems reasonable to assume that since Smith was a prophet of God and was
translating the Book of Mormon under divine inspiration, he would have known about
the errors found in the King James Version and would have corrected them for when
passages from the King James Version appeared in the Book of Mormon. But the errors
went in.
Why does this seem reasonable to assume? Neither the Book of Mormon nor Joseph
Smith either claimed infallibility or perfection. Perhaps the Catholic dogmatic position of the infallibility of ecclesiastical leaders has crept into the writer’s thesis; a position that is entirely
inappropriate and foreign to Mormonism.
According to a standard Mormon theological work, Doctrines of Salvation, one finds this
definition: "By fullness of the gospel is meant all the ordinances and principles that
pertain to the exaltation of the celestial kingdom" (vol. 1, p. 160). That’s an official
Mormon statement on the subject. But there’s a problem.
If the Book of Mormon contains all the ordinances and principles that pertain to the
gospel, why don’t Mormonism’s esoteric doctrines show up in it? The doctrine that God
is nothing more than an "exalted man with a body of flesh and bones" appears nowhere
in the Book of Mormon. Nor does the doctrine of Jesus Christ being the "spirit brother"
of Lucifer. Nor do the doctrines that men can become gods and that God the Father has
a god above him, who has a god above him, ad infinitum.
It should first be noted that even if Doctrine of Salvation is a “standard Mormon
theological work”, it has never been an officially endorsed work by the 1st Presidency of
the Church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, off the bat the writer at Catholic Answers is going
off of a false assumption. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself defines just what
exactly the “fulness of the Gospel” entails. The fulness of the Gospel of Christ onto
Salvation is not to be confused with the higher ordinances pertaining to exaltation. The
fulness of the Gospel of Christ (as outlined in 3 Nephi 11 and 27) is a six point system
that consists of Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism by Immersion, the
laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the Resurrection and eternal
judgement.
What’s more, two-thirds of the Book of Mormon remain sealed until later times. Who
knows what other doctrines are contained therein. And, as I pointed out in Part 2 of my
response to Matt Slick, there are some hints of these higher doctrines contained in the
Book of Mormon.
These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of
Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon.
For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: "Now
Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And
Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel
hath made them known unto me.’”
Context is key. As Brant Gardner has pointed out[12], these passages do not refute the
Latter-day Saint doctrine of the persons of the Godhood being distinct gods. Instead,
when read in context, we see how Amulek responded in the manner that he did
because he was being crossed examined by Zeezrom, a crafty and cunning lawyer who
wanted to trap Amulek in his words. It is clear, in other words, that Amulek was
being careful not to seemingly contradict himself before Zeezrom and selected his
words carefully to escape from Zeezrom's rhetorical snare.
The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or
archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that
refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines.
This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it
containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." (It would be more accurate to say it
contains almost none of their "everlasting gospel" at all.) Third, the Book of Mormon
abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.
1. This is false, as has been demonstrated. There is an abundance of historical
evidence for the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, it would be nice for Catholic Answers
to show the reader the “overwhelming body” of “empirical evidences” that refutes the
Book of Mormon. But, as before, Catholic Answers simply declares a broad
generalization and leaves it at that. Some of the polemical readers of the Catholic
Answers website might be impressed by this, but the Latter-day Saints are not.
2. Catholic Answers has drastically misunderstood the nature of Mormon theology,
specifically relating to the Key Points of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When we drop
the straw men created by anti-Mormons in this regard, we see that not only is Latter-day
Saint doctrine concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ radically preached in the
Book of Mormon, but also hints here and there of the higher doctrines of exaltation.
3. Like before, Catholic Answers does not bother to tell us these “textual errors, factual
errors and outright plagiarisms”. It simply declares it and then leaves it be, hoping that
someone foolishly takes heed. Any example be nice, as it would give the intrepid - if
not thoroughly bored - reader something to engage.
If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are
two you can use.
We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our
forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).
If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are
only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area
around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the
Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.
This tired criticism has long been refuted by Latter-day Saint scholars[13]. The fact that
Catholic Answers brings this up shows either how desperate for something against the
Book of Mormon or ignorant of LDS scholarship they really are.
As I pointed out in part 4 of my response to Matt Slick, the simple fact of the matter is
that many ancient texts speak of Bethlehem as being a small suburb in the “land of
Jerusalem”. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is strictly correct in identifying the birthplace
of Jesus as being in the “land of Jerusalem”. So instead of being a point against the
Book of Mormon, this phrase from Alma is further evidence for its authenticity.
Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to
the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in
Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.
Just once it would be nice to the see the critics read the Book of Mormon in context.
This passage in Ether speaks of the Honey Bee in an Old World setting. Also, Catholic
Answers is simply wrong in stating that it was the Spanish who brought the Honey Bee
with them to the Americas. There is abundant evidence that pre-Columbian Honey Bees
existed long before the Spanish. However, this is not a problem since, as was
mentioned before, the only mention of bees in the Book of Mormon are in an Old World
setting[14].
The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about
bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw
them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by
them.
This statement is puzzling. First, how does Catholic Answers know that Joseph Smith
simply “saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local
color”? What documentation does Catholic Answers provide for this claim? Not
surprisingly, none. This is just irresponsible rhetoric on the part of an irresponsible writer
who irresponsibly created an irresponsible polemic against the Book of Mormon. I now
seriously doubt that the writer of this article has 1) read the Book of Mormon and 2) read
contemporary Latter-day Saint scholarship regarding the Book of Mormon.
Because of such, this article is not a reliable guide to determining Book of Mormon
historicity. It simply does not hold up to close scrutiny. It is riddled with errors, false
assumptions, phony conclusions and empty attacks. It is simply one giant broad stroke
of the fallacy brush that makes triumphant albeit ultimately meaningless assertions that
cannot and should not be taken seriously.
Notes:
[3]: For a good reponse to the criticisms brought up against the "burning of the bosom" see the following by FAIR.http://en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/Burning_in_the_Bosom
[4]: Some excellent materials include Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited edited by Noel B. Reynolds (link here) and Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon by Daniel C. Peterson, Donald W. Perry and John W. Welch (link here). Other materials covering Book of Mormon evidence inlcude:
Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins (Deseret Book and FARMS, 1982) edited by Noel B. Reynolds
Lehi in the Desert (link here) by Hugh Nibley
An Approach to the Book of Mormon (link here) by Hugh Nibley
King Benjamin's Speech: "That Ye May Learn Wisdom" (link here) edited by Stephen D. Ricks and John Welch
Warfare in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1990) edited by Stephen D. Ricks
Book of Mormon Evidences by Jeff Lindsay (link here).
Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Deseret Book, 1981) by Richard L. Anderson
An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Deseret Book and FARMS, 1985) by John L. Sorenson
Second Witness: Analytical and Contexual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2007) by Brant Gardner.
This is just a small sampling of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. For a more information, check out the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
[5]: Nowhere in the article are Latter-day Saint arguments for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon engaged or even acknowledged. This smacks of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Catholic Answers.
[6]: For a signifgant disucssion on Book of Mormon geography, see John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon and Brant Gardner in his 6 volume seriesSecond Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon.
[7]: Daniel C. Peterson has written an excellent article on this subject, which can be accessedhere.
[8]: On this subject, see Archaeology and Cumorah Questions by John E. Clark (link here). Also see In Search of Cumorah (1999, Ceder Fort.) by David Palmer.
[9]: Brant Gardner in Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion (link found here). Also see Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon Geography by William J. Hamblin (linkhere).
[10]: Two popular anti-Mormon theories (which are possibly the ones being referenced in the article by Catholic Answers) as to how the Book of Mormon was written are the claims that Joseph Smith either plagiarized the works of Solomon Spaulding or Ethan Smith (or both). For an analysis on the veracity of these two theories, see Louis C. Midgley in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Critics and Their Theories (found here).
[11]: For an introduction, see John A. Tvedtnes in Isaiah in the Bible and the Book of Mormon(found here). Also see Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon (found here). For a more extensive treatment of this subject, see Isaiah in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1998) edited by Donald W. Perry and John W. Welch.
[12]: Brant Gardner in Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (Greg Kofford Books, 2007) 4:186-187
[13]: See especially the article prepared by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) on this subject. The link can be found here.
[14]: FAIR again offers a fine rebuttal to this accusation, which can be accessed here.
