The Strong Reasons Against the Book of Mormon

On December 1, 1831, the Prophet Joseph Smith received the following revelation, now recorded as D&C 71:8-9:

"Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you in both public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful, their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring their strong reasons against the Lord."

Both the Latter-day Saints and their critics have seemingly taken this admonition to heart. Not only have the Latter-day Saints passionately defended their faith since before the actual founding of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, but their critics have produced a long stream of "strong reasons" against the faith of the Saints.

One such website[1] offers a few of these "Reasons to Reject the Book of Mormon". As usual, the comments and points made in the article shall be in red while mine rejoinder shall be in black.

But before I launch into my investigation, the sage words of Hugh Nibley from his classic essay How to Write and Anti-Mormon Book, should be considered very carefully:

Rule 17: In place of evidence use Rhetoric

When one is making grave criminal charges, either directly or by broad implication as all anti-Mormon writers do, questions of evidence can be very bothersome unless one has the wisdom and foresight to avoid all such questions...the public prefers rhetoric to evidence. [2]

With that in mind, let us proceed.

1. There is no room for the Book of Mormon because the Bible itself claims to be all-sufficient, complete and incorruptible and our judge on the last day.

This aptly describes the fundamentalist Protestant view of sola scriptura, or the sufficiency of scripture for salvation and guiding the Church. However, this view is flawed in several ways. For one thing, it circularly argues that the Bible itself is able to interpret itself. In other words, because the Bible says that it is "all-sufficient and complete" - which, of course, the Bible never claims - that this is enough to preclude any other need for modern scripture.

Common proof texts that Evangelicals like to use to bolster this claim comes from 2 Timothy 3:5-17 and Revelation 22:18-19. Furthermore, Evangelical critics of the Church of Jesus Christ often like to cite these scriptures as proof that there can be no more addition to the scriptures. However, as has been demonstrated time and time again, this view is both myopic and ignorant of the nature of biblical textual transmission and criticism[3].

2. The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

It would be most appreciated if the author would point out where exactly the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.

3. The Book of Mormon makes many scientifically false statements.

I can't help but wonder just exactly how the author can claim this about the Book of Mormon and then conveniently ignore the fact that secular scholars and scientists have long been pointing out that the Bible suffers from "scientifically false" claims. It is simply a double standard.

4. Absolutely none of the specific historical content has been verified through Archaeological finds.

That's news to the researchers at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, who, among others, have documented a wide range of many ancient findings that support the historical claims of the Book of Mormon[4]. Furthermore, the author, who makes it abundantly clear on his/her webpage that he/she espouses a view of biblical inerrancy, should be careful when making this claim. If one is going to live by the sword of archaeology, then one is going to die by the sword of archaeology. Many biblical scholars have been contesting the historicity of the Old Testament and there is still a rather large debate on that point[5].

5. We do not have the Gold Nephi Plates for the world to examine.

Nor do we have the original manuscripts of the books of the Bible for the world to examine. The oldest manuscripts of some of the books of the Bible date decades and even centuries after the books were supposedly written, which has forced some scholars to question the veracity of the biblical texts.

Furthermore, as Hugh Nibley pointed out in 1957:

Critics of the Book of Mormon often remark sarcastically that it is a great pity that the golden plates have disappeared, since they would very conveniently prove Joseph Smith's story. They would do nothing of the sort. The presence of the plates would only prove that there were plates, no more: it would not prove that Nephites wrote them, or that an angel brought them, or that they had been translated by the gift and power of God; and we can be sure that scholars would quarrel about the writing on them for generations without coming to any agreement, exactly as they did about the writings of Homer and parts of the Bible. The possession of the plates would have a very disruptive effect, and it would prove virtually nothing. On the other hand, a far more impressive claim is put forth when the whole work is given to the world in what is claimed to be a divinely inspired translation—in such a text any cause or pretext for disagreement and speculation about the text is reduced to an absolute minimum: it is a text which all the world can read and understand, and is a far more miraculous object than any gold plates would be.[6]

Once again, the author of the article has deployed another double standard that has backfired.

6. Although the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon was alleged to be inspired in its English translation, there have been thousands of changes, corrections, additions and deletions. Most Mormons have never seen the original 1830 "inspired" edition and would be shocked if they did.

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.

7. Although they claims direct guidence by God, the Mormon church is among the most divided Church in the world with more than 89 sects who will not cooperate with each other.

 As opposed to the 33,000+ Protestant denominations who all claim "direct guidance from God"[7]? If anyone has to worry about division amongst their sect of Christianity, it is the fundamentalist Protestant author of this article.

8. The Doctrine and Covenants is very different depending upon which sect you are talking to.

If the differentiation of canon is a proof against a religious tradition, then the Judeo-Christian tradition would be in hot water. After all, Catholics include the Apocrypha in their canon, while Protestants do not. And Jews only have the Old Testament and reject the New Testament. And what about the early Gnostic scriptures not included in the present canon?

9. The three witnesses of the B of M were all excommunicated by the Mormon Church and were of less than ideal character.

This is a red herring. While it is true that the Three Witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdry and Daivd Whitmer) were excommunicated after a falling out with Joseph Smith during the Kirtland apostasy of the mid 1830's, the website never bothers to tell you that two of them, Oliver Cowdry and Martin Harris, were re-baptized back into the Church and all three of the witnesses NEVER denied their testimony in the Book of Mormon and that they had seen the plates.

Furthermore, the claim of the website that the witnesses were of "less than ideal character" cannot be substantiated by the historical record. Richard L. Anderson has written extensively on the witnesses of the Book of Mormon and has convincingly documented that the three witnesses not only were of high moral character and integrity, but that their testimonies in the Book of Mormon not only never changed but are also trustworthy[8].

In short, this sad list of "reasons to reject the Book of Mormon" is anything but. The author frequently deploys double standards and other logical fallacies and ignores contemporary LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon. If this is all that the critics can muster, then the Latter-day Saints can rejoice in their faith on the Book of Mormon as an ancient record written by Prophets who testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In short, the critics are going to need stronger reasons than these in order to impugn the Book of Mormon as another testimony of Jesus Christ.

**Notes**

[1]: Because this website has links that shows temple ordinances, I will not post the link here.

[2]: Hugh Nibley in How to Write and Anti-Mormon Book reprinted in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (FARMS, 1991) pg. 495. In a similar vein, John Taylor, writing in 1842 in the Church newspaper, theTimes and Season (Sept. 15, 1842), wrote that "facts are stubborn things" when it comes to critics of the Church having to deal with the evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[3]: For Latter-day Saint perspectives on the issue of "adding to the Bible" see this set of linksfrom the Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research as well as the work of James at the blog named Lehi's Library. During the 2008 Spring General Conference, Elder Jeffry R. Holland of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles delivered a talk worth reading entitled "My Words... Never Cease" in which he addressed the issue of an open vs. closed canon.

[4]: For a quick overview of these evidences, see Echos and Evidences of the Book of Mormon(link here) and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (linkhere). Another excellent resource on this is Brant Gardner's recent Book of Mormon commentary Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon(Greg Kofford Books, 2007).

[5]: For an overview of this position, see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman in The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Touchstone, 2001). It must be said that, despite what some Evangelical anti-Mormons might think, I do not bring up these objections to the Bible because I do not accept it as the Word of God or because I am "attacking" the Bible. Instead, I bring up these issues in order to demonstrate the Evangelical anti-Mormon double standard when it comes to evaluating the historicity of the Book of Mormon when compared to the Bible.

[6]: Hugh Nibley in An Approach to the Book of Mormon (link here for the specific excerpt from the book).

[7]: The World Christian Encyclopedia ed. David B. Barrett, George T. Kurian, Todd M. Johnson (Oxford University Press, 2001) Vol. I Pg. 16

[8]: Richard L. Anderson Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Deseret Book, 1981).

Caveat Lector or the Book of Mormon Ab Antiquo

After my escapade with Matt Slick at CARM, I came across another website that criticizes the Book of Mormon[1]. This one, however, is not from a fundamentalist Protestant source. Instead, it comes from the good folks at Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetic site dedicated to defend the orthodoxy of Roman Catholicism.

Therefore, I shall once again take up the pen (er... keyboard) and examine the claims of this Catholic webpage to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

My first impression of this article is that it is amazingly sweeping and generalizing (many claims are spouted off without any documentation or consideration of contrary evidence) and the criticisms directed against the Book of Mormon are surprisingly weak and fatuous. As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon actually does not seem to be the focus of this article, but instead only shares a few paragraphs next to a critical view of the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as representing a restoration of primitive Christianity. Because of such, I will focus only on the criticisms directed against the Book of Mormon (since, after all, this is a blog about the Book of Mormon) and will skip the Catholic arguments against Latter-day Saint claims to representing primitive Christianity[2].

As before, the comments of the webpage critical of the Book of Mormon shall be in red with my comments in black.

In these "latter days," there are few people who haven’t been visited at least once by Mormon missionaries. At some point in your doorstep dialogue, these earnest young men will ask you to accept a copy of the Book of Mormon, read it, and pray about it, asking the Lord to "send the Holy Ghost to witness that it is true." Then, very solemnly, they’ll "testify" to you that they know the Book of Mormon is true, that it’s God’s inspired word, and that it contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." They’ll assure you that if you read their text in a spirit of prayerful inquiry, you, too, will receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost. That testimony supposedly will convince you beyond doubt that the Book of Mormon is exactly what they claim it to be.

So far so good. Everything seems okay here.

Keep in mind that the missionaries want you to have a feeling about the Book of Mormon after reading it. They’ll tell you that you’ll receive the witness of the Holy Ghost in the form of a "burning in the bosom"—a warm, fuzzy feeling—after reading and praying about it. This feeling is the clincher for them. It’s the real "proof" that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture, and everything else follows from that conclusion.

And here is where we run into a problem. This cheap caricature of Latter-day Saint testimonies is not only inaccurate, but offensive. The manifestation of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is of God is not a "warm fuzzy" despite what some of the critics would like us to think. Instead, it is a revelation, like that of Peter when he declared that Jesus was the Christ, that permiates both the mind and spirit and awkens us to the realization that the Book of Mormon is true. The phrase "burning of the bosom" is nothing more than a Mormon colloquialism that is used by the Latter-day Saints to describe the feeling that comes after gaining a testimony and convinction that the Book of Mormon is true[3].

But think about it. How often have you felt strongly about something or someone, only to learn your feelings were misguided? Feelings, although a part of our human makeup, can’t be a yardstick in matters like this.

This fallacy assumes that the Latter-day Saints have grounded their testimony in the Book of Mormon only by a "feeling" and not by revelation. Furthermore, this argument could be turned around and pointed against Catholics. How do you know that your testimony in the Pope or the Catholic faith is not just a "feeling"?

The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.

This sentence is problematic. I would venture to say that most, if not all, Latter-day Saints accept the Book of Mormon as an inspired text because of not only their personal witness of the Spirit but also because of its powerful testimony of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. While it is true that the Book of Mormon does foretell the ministry of Joseph Smith, this is only secondary to the many testimonies and prophecies in the Book of Mormon about Jesus Christ.

The Book of Mormon itself suffers the same fate when it comes to its own historical support. In a word, it hasn’t got any.

This is just one example of the many sweeping generalizations mentioned earlier and is a living manifestation of the ignorance of whoever wrote this article. In a word, the Book of Mormon has substantial evidence for it's authenticity. Many historical, literary, archaeological and anthropological evidences have been discovered in favor of the Book of Mormon[4].

The Book of Mormon describes a vast pre-Columbian culture that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America.

This demonstrates that the writer at Catholic Answers is not only unfamiliar with the most recent scholarship on the Book of Mormon[5] but with the Book of Mormon text itself. While it is true that the traditional view of Book of Mormon geography has been that the Book of Mormon events occured in all of North and South America (as the article claims) the Book of Mormon itself describes travel details that make that view impossible. Instead, the Book of Mormon events most likely took place in a localized area in Mesoamerica and in only a few hundred miles in distance[6].

It goes into amazingly specific detail describing the civilizations erected by the "Nephites" and "Lamanites," who were Jews that fled Palestine in three installments, built massive cities in the New World, farmed the land, produced works of art, and fought large-scale wars which culminated in the utter destruction of the Nephites in A.D. 421. The Latter-Day Saints revere the Book of Mormon as the divinely-inspired record of those people and of Christ’s appearance to them shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem.

While it is true that the Book of Mormon goes into amazing detail about the Nephites and Lamanites (which is remarkable considering the manner in which Joseph Smith produced the text[7]) the Nephites and Lamanites were not Jews. Indeed, Lehi was of the tribe of Manassah, and not of Judah. Thus, Catholic Answers again gets the fine details of the Book of Mormon wrong. At this point, I am wondering if the folks at Catholic Answers have even read the Book of Mormon or if they are just banking off of previous critcisms. I suspect the latter.

The awkward part for the Mormon church is the total lack of historical and archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. For example, after the cataclysmic last battle fought between the Nephites and Lamanites, there was no one left to clean up the mess. Hundreds of thousands of men and beasts allegedly perished in that battle, and the ground was strewn with weapons and armor. Keep in mind that A.D. 421 is just yesterday in archaeological terms. It should be easy to locate and retrieve copious evidence of such a battle, and there hasn’t been enough time for the weapons and armor to turn to dust. The Bible tells of similar battles that have been documented by archaeology, battles which took place long before A.D. 421.

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:

[1]: In what can only be described as creative genius, the article was given the original and fresh name "Problems with the Book of Mormon".

[2]: A large corpus of LDS literature has been produced that argues in favor of the claims of the LDS faith as being a restoration of primitive Christianity. Some items include Hugh Nibley in Mormonism and Early Christianity (link here), The World and the Prophets (link here) andApostles and Bishops in Early Christianity (FARMS and Deseret Book, 2005) as well as Daniel C. Peterson in Mormonism as a Restoration (link here) and "What Has Athens have to do with Jerusalem?": Apostasy and Restoration in the Big Picture (link here). Also worth reading is Tad R. Callister in The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration (Deseret Book, 2006) as well as Early Christians in Disarray edited by Noel B. Reynolds (link here). Restoring the Ancient Church by Barry Bickmore (link here) also offers an excellent treatment on this subject.

[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.

Some Final Thoughts and Conclusions

I have spent the last few days looking over and assessing the validity of the claims of Matt Slick against the Book of Mormon. After reading and re-reading his materials, looking up his references and cross checking his citations, I have found Slick to be highly wanting in many areas. He not only mis-contextualizes and misuses the Book of Mormon text to suit his agenda but he makes bald faced assertions that just do not hold up to the evidence. He regularly employs double standards and other logical fallacies and conveniently ignores any evidence contrary to his arguments. In short, Slick is not a reliable source to turn to when it comes to analyzing the historicity of the Book of Mormon and whether or not it comes from God.

But so what? Why does this matter? Why did I even bother to address Slick's claims? 

I did so not to convince Slick or try to persuade him to abandon his belief that the Book of Mormon not only is not historical but also not of God, nor to impress any of the critics of the Book of Mormon in general. He and his like minded critics have shut the door to the possibility that the Book of Mormon is historical and of God, and thus it would be a waste of my time to try and convince him. No, I did this to help those who may have encountered Slick's material and need another perspective on these issues and a rejoinder to the critics. I did this so that those who are investigating the Book of Mormon can know for themselves that there are answers out there to the allegations of the critics. We Latter-day Saints are not hiding our heads in the sand and unwilling to critically examine the evidence and our faith. We are not blindly following the General Authorities of the Church or refusing to engage in criticisms of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. We are doing the research, looking at the claims, examining the evidence and weighing it against the claims of the critics. And I am personally happy to report that, for the most part, the criticisms of the Book of Mormon do not hold any weight after careful analysis. 

Now this does not mean that all of the questions have been answered or that the controversy has been settled. There still remain questions as to some of the points of Book of Mormon historicity. I myself still have questions about the Book of Mormon and some of the claims therein. However, I can fully affirm that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be; and ancient document with Near Eastern and Mesoamerican roots written by inspired Prophets of God. Even though I still have questions, that does not mean that I do not have a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. As John L. Lund has recently pointed out, we should not lose faith in what we do know because of things we do not know[1]. In other words, just because there remain questions about the Book of Mormon this should not disparage anyone or shake their faith.

Finally, we need to be careful not to place our trust on the arm of flesh in regards to spiritual matters such as the Book of Mormon. Our understanding of the ancient world is changing constantly. As new evidence is discovered old theories will either have to be refined or discarded. Critics need to be careful, therefore, when they make judgements against the Book of Mormon based on historical details that may not be yet confirmed by secular wisdom. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because something has not been found that does not mean that it does not exist. To abandon the Book of Mormon on this standard is a sandy foundation if there ever was one. Matt Roper wisely summed it up thusly:

Let's imagine a scenario. Suppose I read the Book of Mormon some time ago, say, in the 1970s. I read about the Nephites having barley. I reject the Book of Mormon because there is no evidence for pre-Columbian barley. This was, after all, the scholarly consensus-there was no pre-Columbian domesticated barley in the New World period! But now it turns out that this view was wrong. There was in fact archaeological evidence for barley in pre-Columbian America. It just hadn't been discovered yet. Let's suppose I had even staked my life on the belief in opinion of scholars that there was no such grain before Columbus. Wouldn't I have made a terrible mistake? The example of pre-Columbian barley should be a warning to us that similar evidences for the Book of Mormon, which at present seem to be anachronisms, may yet be forthcoming as well. [2]

** End of Series **

[1]: John L. Lund in Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon (The Communications Company. 2007) Pg. 215

[2]: Matt Roper in "Right on Target: Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon" (link here).

A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 4)

"The Book of Mormon is tough. It thrives on investigation. You may kick it around like a football, as many have done; and I promise you it will wear you out before you ever put a dent in it."

- Hugh W. Nibley

One of the standard methods employed by anti-Mormons when it comes to criticizing the Book of Mormon is to create a long and impressive laundry list of "problems" with the text (must need items on that list include steel, horses, wheat and Jesus being born in Jerusalem) and present it to the audience without any further follow up or elaboration. After all, once the list runs well over several items that should be enough to have the Latter-day Saints shaking in their boots and other like-minded critics nodding in solemn agreement. 

Without failure, Matt Slick flawlessly executes this trick in his article with the unexciting, unoriginal and cliche title "Problems with the Book of Mormon".

After a watered-down and somewhat inaccurate synopsis of the Book of Mormon[1], Slick then presents his list of "problems" with the Book of Mormon and glibly remarks that the book therefore "is not of God".

Let us take a look at Slick's chart and see if it hold up. As with the other articles in this series, Slick's comments are in red whilst mine are in black.

Adam's Fall/ 2 Ne. 2:25 / False: Men exist without Adam's Fall.

Slick provides no Scriptural evidence for this claim. He simply asserts this and leaves it be. Paul, on the other hand, spoke of how "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). Does not death for everyone "in Adam" not also require first that we all partake of mortality? Furthermore, were not Adam and Eve unable to have children lest they fall from grace in the garden? It seems, therefore, that Slick contradicts scripture.

Birth of Jesus/ Alma 7:10/ Alma 7:10 contradicts the Bible in Matt 2:1

The fact that Slick brings up this old and worn out anti-Mormon chestnut demonstrates that not only is he unfamiliar with the usage of the words "land" versus "city" in the Book of Mormon (indeed, Jesus is said to have been born in the "land" of Jerusalem and not the "city") but that he also is either woefully ignorant of the most recent Book of Mormon scholarship or is simply ignoring it. 

It must be remembered that Bethlehem is less than 5 miles south of Jerusalem, and thus, it would have been considered to be apart of the larger geo-political "land of Jerusalem" as is recorded in the Book of Mormon and other texts such as the Amarna letters and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like the ancient Greek City-States of Athens and Sparta, Jerusalem was both a "city" and a "land" in that there was the city of Jerusalem and the surrounding landscape and smaller cities that the "land of Jerusalem" encompassed. Daniel C. Peterson aptly sums up the issue thusly:

The prophecy of Alma 7:10 fits into antiquity very well. If, as Professors Eisenman and Wise observe, an allusion to "the land of Jerusalem" in Pseudo-Jeremiah fragment 4Q385 "greatly enhances [its] sense of historicity," does similar language not "greatly enhance the sense of historicity" of the Book of Mormon? Alma 7:10 is not the sort of thing that Joseph Smith would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason that it bothers enemies of Mormonism. Far from being a serious liability for the Book of Mormon, Alma's prophetic comment about the birth of the Messiah is plausible evidence that the Nephite record is exactly what it claims to be—an authentic ancient historical text with roots in the Near East. [8]

Cimeter (Scimitar)/ Mosiah 9:16/ Scimitars (Curved Swords) didn't exist until the 500's.

This is simply false. Plenty of epigraphical and archaeological evidence shows that scimitars were being used in both Pre-Exilic Israel and Pre-Classic Mesoamerica[2]. 

Elephants/ Ether 9:19/ Elephants weren't in America at the time of the BOM [Book of Mormon]

FAIR has created a nice summary on the issue of Elephants and other animals[3] in the Book of Mormon. I shall quote the page in extensio for the reader:

The only place that elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C...Besides the traditions, five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico. Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’”...

The oral traditions, written records, and artwork depicting elephants lends strong support for the claim that the elephant existed in ancient America. Even more substantial support-- actual remains-- have also been discovered. Today all scholars agree that mastodons and mammoths (which are unquestionably elephants to zoologists) once lived in the Americas. The dispute today is how late they lived. According to the Book of Mormon they need not have lived later than 2400 B.C. Within recent years archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the elephant could very well have survived to such a late date. Butchered mastodon bones were recently discovered at one archaeological site which dates to shortly after the time of Christ. Another site, dating to approximately 100 B.C. has yielded the remains of a mammoth, a mastodon, as well as a horse.

Some scholars have suggested that the elephant (mammoth or mastodon) lived later than hitherto believed. Ludwell Johnson, in an article entitled “Men and Elephants in America” published in Scientific Monthly, wrote that

“Discoveries of associations of human and proboscidean remains [Elephantine mammals, including, elephants, mammoths, and mastodons] are by no means uncommon. As of 1950, MacCowan listed no less than twenty-seven” including, as noted by Hugo Gross, a “partly burned mastodon skeleton and numerous potsherds at Alangasi, Ecuador...There can no longer be any doubt that man and elephant coexisted in America.... Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years."

If the elephants had died off at least 3000 years ago, they would still have been well within range of the Jaredite era. And as noted above, some evidence indicates that the elephant may have survived in limited numbers for centuries later.

In short, the elephant presents no problem for the Book of Mormon. [4. Footnotes silently deleted]

Honey Bees/ Ether 2:3/ Honey Bees were introduced to America by the Spanish

Slick needs to read the Book of Mormon text more closely. The only mention of Honey Bees in the Book of Mormon occur in an Old World setting (that of the Jaredites in central Asia or western Mesopotamia). Furthermore, evidence of pre-Columbian domesticated Honey Bees is ample[5]. The simple fact of the matter is that Slick is wrong on both counts.

God Indwells the Righteous/ Alma 34:36/ BOM contradicts the D&C

Context is everything. The quotation from D&C 130 is speaking of the "old sectarian notion" that because God and Christ do not have bodies they therefore can literally dwell within the hearts of the men. The Prophet Joseph Smith clarifies and states (verse 22) that it is by the Holy Ghost (who does not have a body) that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (who do have bodies) dwells within the hearts of the righteous. Therefore, the D&C does not contradict but instead clarifies the Book of Mormon by stating that it is by the Sprit that the Lord dwells within our hearts. 

Horses/ 1 Ne. 18:25/ Horses didn't exist in America until the 16th Century

Actually, horse remains have been found that date to the 2nd Ice Age (circa 10,000 BCE). The question, however, is whether or not any of those horses survived until the times of the Book of Mormon. Again, we turn to FAIR:

 As mentioned, one should not reject the possibility of "loan-shifting," — candidate species for "horse" under this interpretation include the tapir, deer or llama.

However, the case against pre-Columbian horses may not be as 'iron-clad' as the critics assume:

Excavations at the site of Mayapan, which dates to a few centuries before the Spaniards arrived, yielded horse bones in four spots. (Two of the lots were from the surface, however, and might represent Spanish horses.) From another site, the Cenote (water hole) Ch'en Mul, came other traces, this time from a firm archaeological context. In the bottom stratum in a sequence of levels of unconsolidated earth almost two meters in thickness, two horse teeth were found. They were partially mineralized, indicating that they were definitely ancient and could not have come from any Spanish animal. The interesting thing is that Maya pottery was also found in the stratified soil where the teeth were located.

Some have argued that horse remains ought to be better attested, if they did play a role in Nephite society. However, it should be remembered that horses do not play a major role in the Book of Mormon. They are mentioned in the following contexts:

Quotations from Old World scriptures

• 2 Nephi 12:7 - citation from Isaiah
• 2 Nephi 15:28 - citation from Isaiah

Apocalyptic teachings in Old World style

• 3 Nephi 21:14 - Jesus speaks of "horses and chariots" in a symbolic and apocalyptic address

Horses in the New World

• 1 Nephi 18:25: we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness,...the horse...
• Ether 9:19 - Jaredites had "horses"

Used in conjunction with chariots

• Alma 18:9 - Ammon feeds the Lamanite king's horses, which are associated with his "chariots."
• Alma 20:6 - Lamanite king uses horses and chariot for visit to neighboring kingdom
• 3 Nephi 3:22 - Nephites "had taken their horses, and their chariots" to a central fortified area for protection against robbers

(It should be noted that we are not told if these chariots served a purpose in riding, or if they were for transport of goods, or if they had a ceremonial function. One assumes some sort of practicality, since they brought chariots to the siege in 3 Nephi.)

Role in animal husbandry

• Enos 1:21 - the people of Nephi did...raise...flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.
• 3 Nephi 4:4 - During the robbers' seige, the Nephites "reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years"
• 3 Nephi 6:1 - After the seige, Nephites each take their possessions home, including "horses and cattle"

It is interesting that the horses are often grouped with cattle, and seem to have played a role in the diet (though this may have been under the exigencies of the siege of 3 Nephi.)

Conspicuously absent is any role of the horse in the many journeys recorded in the Book of Mormon. Nor do horses or chariots play any role in the many Nephite wars; this is in stark contrast to the Biblical account, in which the chariots of Egypt, Babylon, and the Philistines are feared super-weapons upon the plains of Israel.

Nor do we see a role for the horse in gallant cavalry charges that were the romantic warrior ideal in Joseph Smith's day. Nor is there any sign of the rapid war of manoeuver and skirmish favored by the cavalry of the western nations. These are not the horses of the nineteenth century's practical realities or fanciful dreams.

There are societies in which the horse was vital, such as among the Hun warriors of Asia and Eastern Europe, for whom horses were a sign of wealth and status, and for whom they were essential for food, clothing, and war. Yet, there is no known horse bone from this period in the archaeologic record.

If the hundreds of thousands of horses owned by the Huns left little or no trace, it may not be surprising that little has been found in the Americas, given that the Book of Mormon's role for horses is minimal. Ironically, there is more evidence of horses among the Mesoamericans than among the Huns!

Besides, "everyone knows" there were no horses in the Americas before Columbus. Joseph Smith would have understood this common belief. If he was trying to perpetuate a fraud, why include an element that nearly everyone would have heard about, especially when it plays such a small role in the book? [6. Footnotes silently removed.]

Steel/ 1 Ne. 4:9/ The Jews did not have steel at that time.

Again, Slick is simply wrong. Evidence shows that steel swords were being made as early as the 10th century BCE in the ancient Near East. Furthermore, the "steel" mentioned in the Book of Mormon is most assuredly not modern steel (which was not invented until the 1850's) but is consistent with the ancient usage of the word[7].

Salvation/ 2 Ne. 25:23/ Salvation by works.

Slick reads this verse in the Book of Mormon (which talks of being saved by grace "after all we can do") as promoting salvation via works. As a fundamentalist Protestant this is nothing short of heresy for Slick. However, as has been demonstrated by Jeff Lindsay[9], plenty of Scriptural texts point to works being a vital role in our salvation. The Lord reminds us, for example, that not everyone who simply cries "Lord, Lord"[10] will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those who "do the will of my Father" (Matt. 7:21). However, does this mean that we therefore can disregard the Atonement of Christ and his Grace? Absolutely not! The Book of Mormon is emphatic in its declaration that all men will be saved by the Atoning power of Christ. However, that does not mean that we can simply "confess Jesus" and expect to be saved willy-nilly. We must strive to keep the commandments of the Lord and follow His example that he has set for us in order to access the Atonement of Christ. 

Silk/ Alma 4:6/ The Jews didn't have silk at that time.

John Sorenson, in his book An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon[11] and elsewhere has dealt with the issue of silk in the Book of Mormon. He shows evidence that ancient Mesoamerican cultures had fibrous materials that could qualify as silk. Again, we need not assume that the silk in the Book of Mormon is referring to Chinese silk that we modern readers are familiar with. Again, we turn to FAIR:

The production of Old World "silk" requires both silkworms and the mulberry trees upon whose leaves they feed, which critics have charged is impossible.

However, there are several examples of silk or silk-like fabric in pre-Columbian America:

• wild silkworms do exist, and some commentators insisted that the Amerindians spun and wove it from their coccoons
• hair from rabbit bellies was also spun into a cloth dubbed "silk" by the Spanish conquerors
• floss from the ceiba (silk-cotton) tree was made into a "soft delicate cloth," kapok.
• fibres from the wild pineable were also prized for their ability to be woven into a fine, durable fabric
• cotton cloth in Mexico from A.D. 400 is "even, very fine, and gossamer-thin." [12]

Sufficiently Humble/ Alma 5:27/ How do you become sufficiently humble?

This is a gross misrepresentation of Alma's words and demonstrates that Slick is not only sloppy but also highly disingenuous with the Book of Mormon text. In that verse, the one which, it should be noted, Slick even posted on his webpage, so he cannot claim ignorance, it is clear that Alma is rhetorically asking how one can be sufficiently humble without the Atonement of Christ. The verse reads:

Have ye walked, keeping yourself blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins? (Emphasis added.)

It is clear that Alma is asking this rhetorically because all throughout Alma 5 he asks a series of other rhetorical questions meant to call out the reader and put them on the spot. It is intended to show that without the Atonement of Christ we couldn't stand before God and seriously expect to escape judgement. After all, for example, how could we say that we have been sufficiently humble to God without the Atonement of Christ? 

Two Churches/ 1 Ne. 14:10/ If non-Mormon church is the church of Satan, why is Mormonism trying to appear like it?

This is a strange question. What does Slick mean by this? Is he suggesting that the Church of Jesus Christ is trying to become more mainstream? Is he suggesting that Mormons are trying to appear more "Christian"[13]? Until Slick clarifies his statement, this remains an anomaly that I cannot answer.

Conclusion

Not content with that list alone, Slick then again provides another list that shows supposed contradictions with the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint teachings. I have also dealt with this list in parts 1 and 2 of this series.

Thus we see that Slick's list of Book of Mormon problems does not hold up under close scrutiny. Not only is he ignorant of the most recent scholarship that contradict his claims with regard to steel, scimitars, silk, horses, elephants and honey bees but he also is irresponsible when dealing with the Book of Mormon text on issues such as salvation, the birthplace of Jesus and Alma's discourses. Until Slick cleans up his scholarship, we must therefore dismiss his exegesis and analysis of the Book of Mormon as nothing more than pedantic and shallow polemics.

*** End of Part 4 ***

[1]: For example, Slick claims that the Book of Mormon covers a period of 600 BC to 400 AD. In reality, the Book of Ether provides a chronology much earlier than 600BC. Slick also claims that the Book of Mormon describes "some Jews" escaping Jerusalem. While it is true that the Mulekites would have been Jewish, Nephi and his family most certainly were not. The Book of Mormon records that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh (Alma 10:3, 1 Ne. 5:14) and that Ishmael was an Ephraimite (JD 23:184).

[2]: On scimitars in the Book of Mormon, see Paul Y. Hoskisson "Scimitars, Cimeters! We Have Scimitars! Do We Need Another Cimeter?" and William J. Hamblin and A. Brent Merrill "Notes on the Cimeter (Scimitar) in the Book of Mormon" in Warfare in the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1990) pages 352-359 and 360-364 respectively. Also see "Swords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon" and "Mesoamerican "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon" by Matt Roper. (See links here and here)

[3]: When dealing with plants and animals in the Book of Mormon, we must be careful not to read our modern presumptions or paradigms into the text. For example, when the Book of Mormon authors describe certain plants or animals, we must remember that the ancient peoples practiced what is called loan shifting, or, in other words, using a familiar name and applying it to an unfamiliar item (such as an animal or object). For example, the hippopotamus in Greek means "water horse" because when the Greeks first discovered the creature they had no other way of describing it. Thus, when the Nephites describe horses or elephants, we need to consider the possibility that they were using a familiar name and applying it to an unfamiliar creature (such as a deer or a tapir in the case of the horse or mammoths in the case of the elephant). We also need to remember that the Book of Mormon is a translation, which would also allow the possibility of Joseph Smith using a familiar word (like horse) to describe the original word in reformed Egyptian in his translation. 

[4]: See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Elephant

[5]: See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Bees

[6]: See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Horse

[7]: See William J. Hamblin in "Steel in the Book of Mormon" (link here) and "On Nephi's Steel Bow" by Kevin Barney (link here). Also see "Ancient Steel Sword Unearthed" by Gordon C. Thomasson (link here).

[8]: Daniel C. Peterson "On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ" (link here). Also see the offering by FAIR (link here).

[9]: See his website on Grace vs. Works (link here).

[10]: This would seem to contradict the Evangelical position that all one must do to be saved is confess the name of Jesus. Notice how the Lord specifically says that it is not enough to simply say "Lord, Lord" as Protestant theologians would have us think.

[11]: John L. Sorenson An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (FARMS, 1995) pg. 232

[12]:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Plants#Silk

[13]: Which, of course, would be absurd considering the fact that, despite the protest from the likes of Slick, Latter-day Saints are Christians.

A Response to Matt Slick or Steve Smoot's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell (Pt. 3)

"Through all of these years critics have tried to explain [the Book of Mormon]. They have spoken against it. They have ridiculed it. But it has outlived them all, and its influence today is greater than at any time in its history."

- President Gordon B. Hinckley

A double standard is a logical fallacy in which one subjects one's opponent to a standard that one is unwilling to subject to oneself. In other words, one is not being fair and balanced in how one evaluates the arguments of one's opponent when compared to how one allows another to evalute his or her own argument.





Matt Slick, in his treatment on textual variations in the Book of Mormon editions and manuscripts, employs a double standard that is both glaring and unfortunate. He, out of either "stunning ignorance or appalling cynicism[1]" has demonstrated that, when forced to, some anti-Mormons are not below employing double standards to fight against the Church of Jesus Christ.





On his website, Slick warmly endorses the Chicago Statement on biblical Inerrancy[2]. This statement, drafted in 1978, details the modern popular view of Scrpitural inerrancy amongst Evangelical Christians. Slick himself passionatly writes that "recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture [read: inerrancy] is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.[3]"





Thus, when Slick turns his cross hairs on the Book of Mormon, one would expect him to apply the same standard he employed for the Bible, right? Unfortunatly, to expect such is asking too much of Mr. Slick.





In his obtuse article "Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon[4]", Slick again recounts the quote from Joseph Smith wherein the Prophet described the Book of Mormon as "the most correct book". Shortly thereafter, Slick reminds the reader that "allegedly it [the Book of Mormon] was translated by the power of God." Then, the bombshell:

Nevertheless, it has some 4,000 changes in it.

What?! Can he be serious! 4,000[5]? That sure is a high number! How can it be?

If that is not enough for the Latter-day Saints, Slick then asks two more questions that are sure to give the Saints some headaches:

Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God?

Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death?

After these two questions, Slick, in his usual form, provides a handy chart which compares a "very small sample of the changes in the Book of Mormon" and informs his audience that "some are mere spelling corrections, but others are significant changes." Some are mere spelling corrections? Royal Skousen has noted that the majority of the variations in the Book of Mormon are "mere spelling corrections" or grammar and punctuation corrections[6]. He concludes that "errors have crept into the text but no errors significantly interfere with either the message of the book or its doctrine. These textual errors have never prevented readers of the book from receiving their own personal witness of its truth--every sincere reader.[7]"

Thus we see first hand the disingenuous way in which Slick presents his information on the textual variations in the Book of Mormon. He leads his reader away with a red herring by making it seem that only "some" of the variations in the Book of Mormon are simply "spelling corrections". Furthermore, he also tries to make it seem like the majority of the textual changes in the Book of Mormon are of doctrinal import. However, just the opposite is the case. The vast majority of changes in the Book of Mormon are of minor importance (i.e. spelling, punctuating, grammar, etc.) while very few deal with doctrine[8].

But how is Slick pointing out the changes in the Book of Mormon employing a double standard? Remember that Slick is a firm disciple of biblical inerrancy. For him, therefore, to attack the Book of Mormon based on textual changes while simutaniously ignoring the fact that the New Testament alone has had, according to some textual critics, "literally hundreds of thousands"[9] of textual changes is a glarring double standard[10].

Therefore, unless he abandons his views of biblical inerrancy, Slick cannot attack the Book of Mormon based on textual variations because the Bible has had similar changes[11]. Furthermore, he cannot ask pedantic questions or make desperate comments like the following (Slick's comments are in red, mine are in black):

Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith's death?

For the same reason that the various sects of Christianity continue to change the Bible even to this day; namely, that 1) as new manuscript evidence becomes available new changes are required to best reflect the original texts and 2) because, as human beings at the time, the men who were charged with preserving both the Bible and the Book of Mormon were subject to making mistakes and corrupting God's word because of their limited ability to preserve writings[12].

Where will the Mormon Church change it next?

What kind of a question is this? Is it intended to reflect some spooky conspiracy that will alienate people more against the Church? Is it a rhetorical question gone horribly wrong? Whatever it is, if Slick wants to find out for himself, he can look at the 2004 Doubleday Edition of the Book of Mormon, published by the Church, which includes new variations based on the textual evidence brought forth by the work of Royal Skousen and others. Or he can go right to the source and look at the works of Royal Skousen himself on this subject[13].

As you can see, the Book of Mormon is a changing document.

Just like the Bible, and all of it's thousands upon thousands of changes through the centuries, right Mr. Slick?

Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God?

Could we not ask the same thing about the Bible if it is infallible? Why are there so many changes in the text if it is inerrant?

But why is this even an issue? The Book of Mormon never claimed infallibility or inerrancy. As FAIR reminds us, "the authors of the Book of Mormon themselves explained several times that their writing was imperfect, but that the teachings in the book were from God[14]." And as Hugh Nibley so rightly observed:

The second mortal offense of the Book of Mormon was the admission on the title page that this record, translated "by the gift and power of God," might possibly contain mistakes. Mistakes? In a book revealed by the power of God? Another blasphemous conception. Yet Bible scholars accept this proposition [for the Bible] as readily as they do the first...and once the possibility of human errors is conceded, why should the idea of corrected editions of the Book of Mormon be offensive[15]?

Thus, Slick has set up both a double standard and a straw man in his attack on the Book of Mormon based on textual changes. He is attacking a book for changes that never claims infallibility and ignores the fact that a book he holds to be infallible contains many more changes. Until Slick drops any notion of biblical infallibility, he has no authority or ground on which he can attack the Book of Mormon for textual variations.

** End of Part 3 **





[1]: Daniel C. Peterson in Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism. While the comment was directed to Evangelical anti-Mormons in general, they apply well to Slick specifically.





[2]: http://www.carm.org/creeds/chicago.htm





[3]: Ibid.





[4]: http://www.carm.org/lds/bom_changes.htm





[5]: Actually, Slick here is being a bit modest. According to Royal Skousen, Professor of Linguistics at Brigham Young University, who has worked on the critical text edition of the Book of Mormon manuscripts for well over 20 years, the number of changes in the Book of Mormon manuscripts is closer to 105,000. See his excellent discussion here.



[6]:See here.



[7]: Ibid. For Skousen's other works, see here.



[8]: Slick brings up the fact that "the Son of" has been added in later editions of the Book of Mormon, which, no doubt, is an attempt to cast doubt on the doctrines of the Book of Mormon. For a response to this charge, see here. Slick also brings up the changing of the name "Benjamin to "Mosiah" in Mosiah 21:28. For a response, see here and here.



[9]: Thomas A. Wayment "The Story of the New Testament" in The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ: From Bethlehem Through the Sermon on the Mount edited by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Thomas A. Wayment (Deseret Book. 2005) page 45. For an excellent treament on the textual development of the New Testament, see Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Harper San Francisco. 2005.) See especially page 6, wherein Ehrman comments on how there are more variations in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.



[10]: Note that I do not have the intention to "attack" the Bible. I am simply trying to show that Slick is holding a double standard. Also note that, like the Book of Mormon, the majority of the changes in the Bible are small changes to spelling, punctuation, and grammar.



[11]: See the following two essays (here and here) by Professor John Gee of BYU.



[12]: On the subject of errrors in the scriptures, see John Tvedtnes in "The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures be Error-Free?". Found online here.



[13]: See the multi-volumed works of Royal Skousen (editor), in Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University.)

[14]: Found here.

[15]: Hugh Nibley in Since Cumorah (2nd edition. FARMS, 1981) pages. 3-4.