Authenticity of The Book of Mormon

This article deals with critical analyses specific to The Book of Mormon. For critical analyses applying to the Mormonism in general, see Controversies regarding Mormonism.

The authenticity of The Book of Mormon has been challenged by various alternate explanations for the origin of The Book of Mormon which are contrary to the official history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("the Church"). These include:

• Joseph Smith wrote (not translated) the book himself.
• Someone else (Sidney Rigdon[?] is often named, a close friend of Smith) wrote the book and allowed Smith to take credit for it.
• The manuscript of another book relating to early American inhabitants was stolen and altered.
• An unpublished novel about early American inhabitants was read by Joseph Smith, who used ideas from the novel when he composed the Book of Mormon.

Table of contents 1 Physical 2 Archeological 3 Linguistic 3.1 Word Usage 3.2 Common passages 3.3 Chiasmus 3.4 Stylometry/Wordprinting 4 DNA 5 Changes Since First Publication 6 Theological 6.1 Changes to a "correct" text 6.2 Inconsistent with Mormon doctrine

Physical

The plates from which The Book of Mormon was supposedly translated are typically referred to as the "gold plates" or other similar phrases. For example, in the Wentworth Letter (http://www.lds4u.com/History/Wentworth.htm) Joseph Smith wrote:

"These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin... The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed."

A block of pure gold measuring 6" x 8" x 6" would weigh roughly 91 kg or 200 lbs. However, William Smith (Joseph's brother) wrote in an 1883 account (http://mail.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/firstv83.htm):

"I was permitted to lift them as they laid in a pillow-case; but not to see them, as it was contrary to the commands he had received. They weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgment."

Bill McKeever believes that this discrepancy suggests that Joseph Smith fabricated his story, unaware of the density of gold. [[1] (http://www.mrm.org/articles/how-heavy)
Michael R. Ash points to the discovery of objects made from tumbaga[?], a gold-copper alloy in South America. He writes that using this alloy would make the plates lighter and more rigid, and could account for the difference in weight. [2] (http://www.mormonfortress.com/gweight).
Opponents of this criticism argue that it is unfair to relate a book of gold plates of unknown thickness to a block of solid gold, as it would be much akin to comparing a stack of aluminum foil with a block of solid aluminum. Other cultures have kept records on metal plates, and those found to date have been extremely thin, so as to facilitate their being engraven into with a pointed utensil. For utilitarian reasons alone, to make it both easier and feasible, the plates would need to be thin enough to allow depressions to be made into them simply by applying pressure, rather than having to scratch and dig as thicker plates would necessitate.

Archeological

Only a small percentage of known archeological sites in the Americas have been fairly excavated. While there is a great deal of archeological data (as well as historic accounts) of ancient Aztec city of Tenochtitlan over which Mexico City was been built, many other ancient cities of the Americas have had little serious excavation done on them. (Brigham Young University has sponsored a number of archeological digs in Mesoamerica.) Although much more is certainly yet to be uncovered, archeology has provided a large amount of data on the lives, customs, technology, etc. of the ancient American peoples. A prominent Mesoamerican archaeologist, Michael Coe of Yale University, addressed the state of Mesoamerican archeology in regards to The Book of Mormon in 1973:

"As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group." ("Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 8, No 2, (Summer 1973), p. 42. (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/))

Much of the literature of the Pre-Columbian Maya, however, was deliberately destroyed by the Spanish when they conquered the region in the 1500s. On this point, Michael Coe noted:

"[O]ur knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim's Progress)." (Michael D. Coe, The Maya, London: Thames and Hudson, 4th ed., 1987, p. 161.)

The ancient Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl, according to some versions as "the bearded white god", is interpreted by some Latter-day Saint apologists as an altered depiction of the actual visit of Jesus Christ to the Americas referred to in the Book of Mormon. Most students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim, for at least two of the following reasons: Quetzalcoatl the Feathered Serpent deity is depicted in Mesoamerican art several centuries before Jesus. The King Quetzalcoatl who promised to return to Mexico dated almost 1,000 years after the life of Jesus. [3] (http://weber.ucsd.edu/~anthclub/quetzalcoatl/que.htm). Apologists rebutt that the visitation of Jesus was incorporated into some of the various, exisiting legends of Quetzalcoatl.

Despite the current state of archeological knowledge in the Americas, each archeological discovery brings probative value regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Interested parties await to see what future archeological evidence reveals regarding the existence of such objects as horses, metallurgical objects (swords), or the names of places in ancient America referred to in the Book of Mormon.

Currently most Mormon apologists do not place much emphasis on archeological evidences (and the Church officially places none) for some of the following reasons:

1. The Introduction to The Book of Mormon states that "[The Lamanites] are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." However, according to some interpretations of the text of The Book of Mormon, there may have been other people and cultures in the same lands at the same time (though the book concerns itself exclusively with the peoples of the narrative), possibly large populations and many different cultures. This would make it impossible to distinguish which archeological discoveries relate to the culture(s) in the narrative.
2. Anthropological issues are further complicated since (Mormon) archeologists don't even know where to start, geographically speaking. The Book of Mormon narrative has been placed everywhere from South and Central America to the Finger Lakes region in New York (possibly relating the people in the story to the Mound Builders[?]). This is because, for one thing the text gives only relative and circumstantial geographical clues. The scales involved are problematic, and worst of all the climax of The Book of Mormon near the end of its historical narrative details a massive cataclysm that changed the geography drastically, which makes all the geographical clues up to that point in the narrative (most of them) useless.
3. Most of the archeology of the mesoamerican area dates to a time after The Book of Mormon narrative ends and the people purportedly disperse and their language, religion and culture deteriorate.
4. Finally, there is seemingly much stronger evidence in the area of literary and linguistic analysis on which the Mormon apologists now tend to focus.

More sophisticated Mormon apologists now focus on evidence with respect to The Book of Mormon authenticity that can be summed up as: There are many things in The Book of Mormon which should not be there if it was written by Joseph Smith or anyone else in the 1830s.

These kinds of evidences approach the book as an old world document springing from the well-documented old world cultures of the Jews, Egyptians, Arabs, etc. Many of the geographical, political, cultural and religious allusions in the Book of Mormon, (including proper names, quotations of texts undiscovered at the time, technology, idioms, poetic style, etc), were not known at the time of Joseph Smith. Doctrinally, the Book of Mormon, it is claimed, is more similar to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, some Gnostic sects and the Dead Sea scrolls, as well as other coptic writings, few of which were available (or popular) at the time.

The critics, on the other hand, have a long list of problem items in the same areas: proper names, anachronisms, quotations of texts that did not exist until after the story takes place (notably the KJV and Shakespeare), and the prevelance of religious and political sentiment of the 1830s. Critics point out further that Mormon apologists are too quick to find parallels between ancient cultures and Book of Mormon cultures.

See the links below for more details on the various sides of the issues:

Mormon Apologists:

• http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml
• http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/keystone.htm

Mormon Critics:

• http://www.lds-mormon.com/nibley1.shtml
• http://www.irr.org/mit/bompage

The following are some examples of non-archeological evidences or lack thereof:

Linguistic

Word Usage

Some Latter-day Saint apologists have offered various possible explanations based on both archaeology (recent finds have shown some technologies existed earlier than previously thought) and linguistics that some words like "horses" which presumably did not exist in North America in the period of the text actually refer to other words such as "tapirs".

Common passages

The Book of Mormon and the Bible have whole chapters in common. Critics argue someone plagarized them from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The Book of Mormon even includes "clarifying words" added to the KJV in AD 1611. These words were not in the original manuscripts. If the purpose were for clarifiation, critics ask, why was the Book of Mormon translated in an archiac form of English?

Chiasmus

Chiasmus is one of several types of Hebrew poetic style that are found in the Book of Mormon.

Stylometry/Wordprinting

Stylometry or Wordprinting, a statistical analysis developed at UC Berkley to determine authorship of various texts such as some of the Federalist Papers, has been used on the Book of Mormon. Results of the test are consistent with Joseph Smith's claim that he translated an abridgement of records written by other ancient prophets.

The book itself repeatedly refers to the authoring and abridgement process, which is quite complex. (See http://danieljordi.halfstrong.com/mormon/reverse_engineering_the_bom.htm )

DNA

As with other potential sources of evidence, data on comparisons of genetic markers in the DNA of different races is in its infancy. Evidence on whether native americans are genetically linked to old world races such as the Jews is currently ambiguous. Also see Lamanites.[?]

Changes Since First Publication

There have been at least 3,913 changes to the text of the Book of Mormon between 1830 and the mid-1970's [4] (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm). Some of these changes affect intepretation.

This is more of a theological issue since changes to the text are not relevant to the question of authenticity in the sense of is The Book of Mormon an ancient document. It is, at worst, an issue of either is The Book of Mormon inspired by God or is the Church changing its doctrines.

For example, after the church reported that black men would be permitted to enter the priesthood, on June 9, 1978, a change was made in the 1981 printing of the Book of Mormon. In 20 Nephi 30:6, which formerly said:

And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

The word white was replaced with the word pure. Such textual changes to the Book of Mormon are presented by critics as proof of changing doctrines within the church, or of the imperfection of the book as a scriptural foundation.

Lists of the changes since the first printing can be found numerous places online, and Project Gutenberg has the text of an early edition which can be compared with current editions.

The church considers this to be an invalid criticism, explaining that the church's doctrines are established and sustained by repeated affirmation by its leaders, not by isolated passages of scripture. The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon includes this notice:

About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

The change from "white" to "pure" was first made in an 1840 edition edited by Joseph Smith, but the change wasn't perpetuated in later editions until 1981.

Theological

Critics argue the Book of Mormon cannot be what Mormons consider it. Critics point to changes since first publication and charge the Book is consistent with Mormon doctrine.

Changes to a "correct" text

By placing two "seer stones" (known as the Urimm and Thummim) in bows attached to a breast plate, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates "one character at a time." Smith dictated the interpretation to Oliver Cowdery, who would repeat it to Smith. According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth." After translating the plates, he said "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct."

Between the Book's first publication in 1830 and the mid 1970's, about 4,000 changes have been recorded. Some are small (such as spelling), but some present significant changes in meaning. Critics argue the translation process does not allow for even one error, as a) Smith called it the most correct book and b) the translation was directed by God.

Inconsistent with Mormon doctrine

Critics charge the Book of Mormon is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine. Though called "the fullness of the everlasting gospel," it does not dictate important doctrines including polygamy, humanity of God, baptism for dead, and preexistence. Believers in the Book of Mormon, however, point to a statement made by Joseph Smith, to the effect that the only real doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, and that all other doctrines and practices are but appendages to those tenets. They comment that no official statement on the humanity of God has been been made since it is unrelated to those 3 things; that no mention is made of plural marriage since it is not a doctrine but a practice, rarely entered into and then only by commandment of God; that Baptism for the Dead is included in the doctrine of Baptism; and that knowledge of the preexistence has been given by divine revelation in our day, and increases our knowledge and understanding of Our Heavenly Father, but may not be included in the Book of Mormon precisely because our Salvation is not contingent upon that knowledge.

The following passages appear to conflict with Mormon doctrines, when taken literally:

• There is only one God, says Mosiah 15:4, so, critics argue, God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit cannot be three gods, and man cannot evolve to be a god. Mormons, however, interpret this passage as a reference to the united Godhead, and specifically to Elohim (God, or Our Father in Heaven), as the only object of worship, at the head of that presidency. Likewise, believers might add, to state that there is only one Pope would not imply that there had never been a Pope before, or that there would never be another. Nor would you assume from this statement that the Pope does not or cannot operate as the head of some quorum of leadership.
• God is static (Mormon 9:9: "the same yesterday, today, and forever"), so, critics argue, he could not have evolved from a man. Mormons believe this to be more a reference to God's constancy for the duration of this earth, than to his having never gone through any changes, growth, or development himself. To them, it is more important, for our Faith and Salvation, to know that God will not waiver, than to know exact details about His own progression. Church leaders have frequently made statements to this effect. According to scripture, time has been given to the inhabitants of this earth "for times and for seasons", as a means to organize and give order to the various circumstances of our existence. Philosophically speaking, this literal view creates a paradox by suggesting a realm wherein time does not exist, therefore negating entirely phrases such as "yesterday", "today", and "forever" by removing any method of relationship (ie, if it is always "today", then "tomorrow" and "yesterday" do not exist, thereby removing any need for "today" as a term, having nothing to relate it to. "Forever" would also be unnecessary as it suggests the existence of a timeline.). Mormon scripture states that "Eternal" is one of God's names. Having roughly the same meaning as "yesterday, today, and forever", this could be taken to morph Mormon 9:9 into a reassurance that God will always be God, and that by virtue of His omniscience (possessing all knowledge) and omnipotence (possessing all power) He is always due our Faith and trust. A quick reading of Mormon 9:9 makes it apparent that "yesterday, today, and forever" does indeed relate only to our mortal timeline, as Mormon uses this phrase to imply that God has not ceased to be "a God of miracles", and that even as He performed miracles for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (collectively, "yesterday"), even so He will perform miracles for those in Mormon's day ("today"), and for all those who shall come after until the end of time ("forever").
• Desiring many wives is "wicked" (Jacob 1:15), so, critics argue, multiple marriage is bad. Doctrine & Covenants 132 declares that even as David was not only justified, but also assisted, in the killing of Goliath, even so there are times when God commands men to do what would otherwise be forbidden, when it is in His wisdom to do so. Abraham was commanded to lie and say that his wife was his sister (thereby sparing him from probable murder and her from probable rape), and later to kill his own son (but stopped from doing so, in a test of his obedience). Mention is made of plural marriage entered into by well-known Biblical prophets, such as: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, and Moses, and that they were all justified in doing so, so long as they had been commanded to do it. The "desiring [of] many wives and concubines" by the people of Nephi, as mentioned in Jacob 1:15, was unrighteous inasmuch as it had not been commanded by God.