Search for Truth 6/07

 

Preface

There comes a time in the life of many Church members when the desire to know the truth about the Church becomes stronger than the desire to believe the Church is true.  Before you read further, you must ask yourself this question:  Is knowing the real truth more important to me than the comfort the Church/gospel brings me?  If it is, you are invited to read on.  If it is not, stop here.  Reading further will be waste of your time.  This is obviously not a trivial question, nor a trivial subject. 

 

The Church teaches us that there are three major tenants of “testimony”: (a) Joseph Smith was a prophet, (b) the Book of Mormon is true, and (c) revelation continues today through living oracles, ie., the General Authorities of the Church.  When someone stands and “bears testimony” of these three facets of belief, let us objectively examine ALL they are asserting:

 

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and implementing the will of God, we MUST accept the following:

1.        All Christian ministers were corrupt in 1820.

2.        God chose a man who admittedly preyed on the superstitions of the people for gain as His oracle.

3.        Some revelations, by Joseph’s own admission, are from God, some are from man, and some are from Satan.

4.        Polygamy is an eternal truth and principle and inseparable from our theology.

5.        Under polygamy rules, it is OK for men to take other wives without permission from the existing wife or wives.

6.        That God would send an angel with a sword to strike down his prophet if he did not take additional wives.

7.        There is no punishment for marrying women already married to another man if God commands it.

8.        The laws of God trump the laws of the land, making it OK to destroy a printing press and conspiracy to commit murder.

9.        That God is a racist, and discriminates against people based on skin color and lineage.

 

If the Book of Mormon is a true history of a real people, we MUST accept the following:

1.        That somehow the Brother of Jared was familiar with glass windows 2000 years before the Romans invented glass.

2.        That somehow Nephi owned a bow of fine steel 400 years before steel was invented and 2000 years before steel processing was advanced enough to fabricate such an item out of “fine steel”.

3.        That somehow the heavily laden families of Lehi and Ishmael were able to travel from Jerusalem to the shores of the Red Sea in three days, a distance of 170 miles, over some of the most rugged terrain in the middle east.

4.        That somehow the horses, cattle, sheep, and elephants mentioned were swept off the continent without a trace or even a bone remaining, and none of the natives drew any likeness of these animals on cave walls.

5.        That somehow the people, after knowing how to make steel and using it extensively for weapons of war, somehow forgot how to do it and miraculously erased all traces of it from this continent.

6.        That somehow the people, after building chariots and making extensive use of the wheel, somehow forgot how to make wheels and erased all evidence that they once built wheeled vehicles extensively.

7.        That somehow the prevalent wheat and barley and silk were eradicated from this continent without a trace.

8.        That somehow a people all speaking a Hebrew/Aramaic dialect in 400 AD would have their language morph into a myriad of languages with no similarities to their legacy language, but rather contain similarities to far eastern languages.  Add to this the fact that in a 2000 year occupation, not a single person wrote any Aramaic, Hebrew, or Egyptian character on the wall of a cave for us to find.  Not one.  This is unprecedented in the history of any people on Earth.

9.        That a Hebrew-looking people with signature facial and skeletal structure and signature DNA would somehow morph into a people with anthropological characteristics and DNA common only to far east populations.

 

If revelation continues today through the General Authorities of the Church, we MUST accept the following:

1.        God chooses NOT to warn his people regarding impending calamities (WTC attack, tsunami, hurricanes).

2.        That current prophets can contradict dead prophets and Church members must accept the changes without question.

3.        In a world filled with moral dilemmas, God has felt compelled to reveal that the number of ear piercings of member women is an important show of obedience and worthy of attention at the highest level.

4.        That historians cannot be trusted to report history because they “idolize the truth”. (B.K. Packer)

5.        That General Authorities can be deceived by criminals (Mark Hofmann deceiving Hinckley and Oaks and others).

6.        That the biggest challenges to the Church today are gays, lesbians, and intellectuals. (B.K. Packer)

7.        That God chooses to reveal major new doctrines/policies under extreme duress (Manifesto, Blacks & Priesthood)

 

And we are to accept all this as sure knowledge based on a spiritual/emotional “witness” which supplants all reason and rational thought and sets them at naught.  Using the emotional response as the ultimate truth test is not something unique to the LDS Church.  It is/has been used widely throughout the world.  An example: 80 million people embraced this method in 1939:

Reason can treacherously deceive a man, but emotion is always sure and never leaves him. – Adolph Hitler

Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains, you will find him with your hearts. – Rudolf Hess

 

Yes, Nazi Germany is an extreme example, but altering a strong misconception calls for a strong counter-example.
Foreward

 

My purpose in writing this document is to succinctly express thoughts, concerns, and track progress in my search for the truth with regard to the LDS church.  This is a work in progress.

 

Of course, the first question is “why question?”  Haven’t I already found the truth and now all is needed is to “endure to the end?”  Well, for the past 30 years (since age 17) this is what I have thought.  Recent events and feelings have changed my mind.  To whit:  (1) Several of my non-member friends seem to know more about aspects of church history than I, which is troubling to a four-year seminary grad, returned missionary, and life-long member;  (2) An apparent reluctance of church officials to discuss and address questions arising from scrutiny of LDS origins;  (3) We are counseled to search for and discover truth (see quotes below);  (4)  It is only in the past 25 years that any of this information has been available to the general public, and deserves (in fact demands) attention.

 

1 Thess 5:19-21:  “Quench not the spirit.  Despise not prophesyings.  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

 

“The truth will cut its own way.” (Joseph Smith Jr.)

 

“To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study – a search for truth.” (John A. Widtsoe)

 

“This book [“The Book of Mormon”] is entitled to the most thorough and impartial examination.  Not only does [“The Book of Mormon”] merit such consideration, it claims, even demands the same.” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith)

 

James E. Talmage on closed mindedness:

"The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position..."

 

Brigham Young on science and religion:

 "Religious teachers... advance many ideas and notions for the truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.  In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 397-98)

 

“If we have the truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation.  If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” (J. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency)

 

"We are grateful in the Church and in this great university that the freedom, dignity and integrity of the individual is basic in Church doctrine as well as in democracy. Here we are free to think and express our opinions. Fear will not stifle thought, as is the case in some areas which have not yet emerged from the dark ages. God himself refuses to trammel man's free agency even though its exercise sometimes teaches painful lessons. Both creative science and revealed religion find their fullest and truest expression in the climate of freedom.

“I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress.  We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed.  Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant.  Only error fears freedom of expression…  This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable.  Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church.  People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences.  We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.”  (Hugh B. Brown, counselor in First Presidency, Speech at BYU, March 29, 1958)

 

Thomas Jefferson taught that however discomfiting a free exchange may be, truth will ultimately emerge the victor.  English philosopher John Stuart Mill said that any attempt to resist another opinion is a “peculiar evil.”  If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.  If it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in its collision with error.

 

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated: if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."  (George Albert Smith, Journal Of Discourses, v 14, page 216)

 

And on the subject of quotations; while many attempt to pass off plagiarized work as their own, I admit freely that much of what I say and discuss is borrowed and abridged.  Others usually are more polished than me in my clumsy attempts to express thoughts, so when I find something that matches my thinking, I have freely plagiarized. 

 

And finally, these issues are deeply important to me.  I do not treat them lightly, whatever the shortcomings of my prose.  The shortest path to the point is sometimes very blunt.  Such bluntness should not be interpreted as making light, cheapening, or detracting from the seriousness and importance of the issue being discussed. 

 

Discerning Truth – How?

 

How can one know the truth?  I believed as in the LDS mainstream truth is found as follows:

Read and study.  Ponder, pray.  What you “feel” to be true by the influence of the Holy Ghost (Moroni 10), with a “burning in the bosom” as described in D&C Section 9.

 

However, I have learned that this method brings with it some difficulties.  I have felt my version of the “burning in the bosom;” however, I have come to the conclusion that that feeling does NOT confirm the truth in my case.  Specific examples:

1.        Faith-building stories told by Paul H. Dunn.  These stories were absolute treasures to me in my youth and gave me the tingly spine and burning in the bosom.  Today we know that his stories were contrived.

2.        I sometimes feel the same things when I hear other inspiring stories or quotes that have nothing to do with religion or the plan of salvation.  I had the same feelings when I read “Where the Red Fern Grows” as a boy. 

 

In addition to my own experiences, it is easy to see that thousands of Catholic nuns feel they have the truth and are living according to God’s will through study and prayer, the same for followers of Islam, Hindus in India, etc.  I think they share the same basic study, prayer, nurture the seed, and positive feeling recipe for their convictions.  Since they can’t all be 100% correct (since their doctrines conflict), there are just too many false positives using this method.

 

Conclusion: the “burning in the bosom” is a NOT a reliable way to determine truth, at least not for me.  Perhaps for some people it is an accurate indicator, but I venture to say that some people think it is and it really isn’t.  I believe that in my case, based on my experiences, it clearly is NOT a reliable way to determine truth.  Can it be used in a positive way?  Of course it can.  Do many people rely on this method and find themselves believing in error?  I think so.

 

I will go on to speculate that this ‘formula’ for determining truth could be proven unreliable beyond a reasonable doubt.  Take 100 people who have lived in a vacuum and have no knowledge of the book “Where the Red Fern Grows” who are also humble and teachable.  Instruct them that to know truth, they should read and pray and watch for that “burning in the bosom”, a ‘tingly’ feeling, or other sign from the Holy Ghost that what they are reading is true, which feeling may vary widely from individual to individual.  Then give them a week to read and pray.  I would venture to say that a high percentage would determine that the book “Where the Red Fern Grows” is truth in this experiment.

 

I believe that what is REALLY happening is that we get a unique feeling when a book, situation, lesson, movie, music, or statement touches us on a spiritual level and strikes a chord deep down in our soul.  This is something we should seek after and experience as often as possible, since our life is enriched each time.  However, at least with me, it is not a reliable indicator of truth, only a reliable indicator of a soul-awakening experience.  While it pains me to say this, I believe that those who say that this method of discerning truth is complete and has to be fail-safe SOLELY BECAUSE it is described in modern scripture are caught in a no-exit track of circular reasoning or self-deceptive paradox.   Trusting emotions over reason has a somewhat dubious track record in history; take for example the Third Reich:

 

Reason can treacherously deceive a man, but emotion is always sure and never leaves him. – Adolph Hitler

Do not seek Adolph Hitler with your brains, you will find him with your hearts. – Rudolf Hess

So, is there a fail-safe, reliable method for discerning truth, or are we forever guessing?  Well some things, such as in math and science, can be proven beyond any rational or reasonable doubt.  Regarding historical events, we are left to judge for ourselves based on available information and our instincts and intuition regarding human nature.  In most cases with church history, there are several possible explanations for any one event, document, journal entry, newspaper article, etc.  Historians use multiple sources and other reasonableness tests to assign a most likely probability.  Generally, ‘Occam’s razor’ holds true: the most likely explanation is usually the correct one.  When I have sat on a jury and listened to opposing accounts of the same event, it has always been fairly obvious, after careful consideration, which account is true and which one is contrived.  The contrived accounts have inconsistencies, require people to do unreasonable things, and break down under examination of physical evidences and are not corroborated by third-party accounts.   These same tools will be useful in assigning probabilities to events in the origin of the church and established the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.  When presented with a plausible argument, it is important to analyze the thread of logic involved.  Ask yourself objective questions, such as: is this argument/scenario intuitive, or does it require mental contortionism?  Does the explanation “make the path straighter,” or does the explanation “make the path crooked?”   Is the scenario compatible with the facts, environment, and other events?  The final test is one of cumulative probability.  When the story relies on a string of low probability events, its probability of holding truth becomes so small that it can generally be safely discarded.

 

To some degree, our understanding of the past is limited by the finite experience base of our lifetime.  Luckily, historians have been able to recreate the moods, current events, gossip, and superstitious mindsets of the Joseph Smith era.  In many cases, understanding event sequences and motivating factors require an in-depth examination of all surrounding circumstances, including the current events and prevalent superstitions.  As an aside, this research reaffirms one sure conclusion: This lifetime is indeed very short, when one looks at the available information and opportunities for learning.  "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance."  -  John Archibald Wheeler   

 

I have also learned through my teaching experience that shared inaccuracies are strong evidence of plagiarism.  A large number of shared ideas, events, and especially a sequence of events is strong evidence for plagiarism.

 

Finally, I have been and continue to make my study a matter of fervent prayer.  I have always believed in the power of prayer, and, as of this writing, this belief has not changed in any substantive way.

 

“The Book of Mormon”

 

Here are some questions about “The Book of Mormon” that I continue to struggle with.

 

  1. The numerous domesticated and other animals (horses, cattle, sheep, elephants) cited in “The Book of Mormon” were not present upon arrival of the Europeans and are not found in the fossil record. None of the glyphs that I have personally encountered on this continent show domesticated animals – only deer and birds and such.  Also, silk and wheat and barley crops cited in “The Book of Mormon” were not present upon arrival of the Europeans.  If “The Book of Mormon” is a true and accurate historical record, how is this possible?

 

  1. The wide use of steel and wheels in “The Book of Mormon” does not square with the stone age level of the natives, and not a single steel artifact, steel mine, wheel, axle, or smeltering implement has been unearthed in the archeological digs on this continent. According to the huge battles, there would have been literally hundreds of thousands of steel swords and shields.  A recent visit to the Native American history museum in Washington, DC also indicates that steel and horses were only part of native American culture after Europeans introduced them.  How does a civilization forget how to make and use wheels?  A somewhat lame attempt to answer these questions is found on the lds.org “I have a Question” forum, but falls about a mile short of an adequate explanation.  If “The Book of Mormon” is a true and accurate historical record, how is this possible?  For that matter, how did Nephi obtain a bow of “fine steel” in 600 B.C.?  How did Shule, the Jaredite Prince, make swords of steel to overthrow his brother Corihor in 1900 B.C.?  Refinement processes and carbonization techniques for producing spring steel would not be invented until about 300 B.C.

 

  1. Linguists agree that the variety of languages found among the native Americans suggest thousands or tens of thousands of years in development/isolation and a non-Hebrew origin.  It is just not logically plausible that at least some Indian tribes were speaking Hebrew at 421 AD as asserted by “The Book of Mormon”.  If “The Book of Mormon” is a true and accurate historical record, how is this rapid confusion of languages, with no Hebrew similarities, possible?

 

  1. Lehi's group immigrants consisted of 17 adults and 3 of them were probably too old to have children (Lehi, his wife and the wife of Ishmael).  In addition, the Mulekites also migrated a few years later, but when they joined the Nephites in the year 120 BC it says that they outnumbered the Nephites but those two groups together totaled less than half the number of Lamanites - so assume there were half as many Mulekites as Lehi had in his group - if population growth rates were similar for the two groups.  The rapid growth rates of human populations are a relatively recent occurrence in human history.  Prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1850's, the average annual global human population growth rate was at best .04% per year. By 1650 it jumped to .4%. By 1850 it hit .8%, by 1950 it jumped to 1.8 (due to advances in medical care). Examining the continual records of battles and numbers of people killed in “The Book of Mormon”, reconciling the reported population with the growth rates it would have taken to achieve it becomes virtually impossible.  A couple of examples, 2:Nephi 5:34 says the Nephites and Lamanites had already waged wars against each other by the year 560 BC. If they had been multiplying at the unheard of rate of 2% a year since they arrived, the total number of adults would have been 55. If half of them were women and some men too old to fight, or too young, or too infirm.  There would have been a total of about 20 'combatants' counting BOTH sides in this 'war'.  Skip ahead to 187 BC in which 3043 Lamanites and 279 of Zenifs people were slain in a single day (Mosiah 9:18-19).  If that many were killed, then think how many were not killed. Women, children, battle survivors, etc.  But just to produce the total number reported killed (3322 people) in this one day, it would have required a population growth rate 1.2% continually for the preceeding FOUR CENTURIES! To put this in perspective, a growth rate of 1.2% was never achieved on a global basis or even in industrialized regions until 1950.  This Nephite growth rate is 30 times the .04 growth rate the rate that existed in the world as a whole during the same era. This is just to account for the number reported KILLED in a single battle in the book. Consider if the required population growth rates if you were to estimate only 10% of the entire population was killed (account for women, children, old people, survivors of the battle, injured survivors of the battle, and just adults that didn't participate in the battle). So jack the growth rate up produce 10 times more people.  And this is for ONE BATTLE in their history.  The book is filled with battles killing thousands of people.  If “The Book of Mormon” is a true and accurate historical record, how can the population growth inconsistencies be reconciled?

 

  1. The account of Ammon cutting off arms of his assailants does not square with my experiences with butchery.  Cutting off a limb is difficult, even when the joint can be exactly located and the tendons and muscles cut.  Cutting through the large bones found in the human arm is simply not possible in a single stroke, or even multiple strokes.  It requires a saw or the combination of an axe with a rigid chopping block.  (Due apologies for the graphic nature of the wording, as well as Monte Python/Holy Grail fans.)  If “The Book of Mormon” is a true and accurate record, and God follows his own physical laws, how is this account possible?

 

  1. In 3rd Nephi there are passages that mimic the King James translation of the Bible exactly, but differ from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.   Examples:

 

 Matthew 6:13:  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

JST, Matthew 6:14:  And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from…

3 Nephi 13:12-13:  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.  For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

 

We have been told that plain and precious things have been taken out of the bible.  However, “The Book of Mormon” is purported to be the word of God, being pure and hidden away from the evil and/or ignorant men who changed the bible over the centuries.  (“We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe “The Book of Mormon” to be the word of God.”)  This was obviously a case of a mistranslation or deliberate change.  If the Lord thought it was important enough to reveal to Joseph the change in meaning (God doesn’t lead us into temptation, but we can ask for his help to avoid temptation) as he translated the bible, why didn’t this meaning become obvious in 3rd Nephi?

 

Mathew 6:22:  The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

JST, Matthew 6:22: The light of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single to the glory of God, thy whole body shall be full of light.

3 Nephi 13:22: The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

.

Again, the JST does a great job clarifying the verse.  However, the same question remains.  Why is the 3rd Nephi verse exactly the same as the mistranslated or changed King James bible version?   

 

  1. When Jesus spoke to the Jews, he taught a very piercing lesson when he said "if any man compel thee to walk with him a mile, walk with him twain" as recorded in the New Testament.  This lesson refers to Roman law during the occupation that stated if a Roman soldier asked, the Jew had to carry his pack and walk with him for a mile.  The Jewish audience could immediately relate and understand.  Jesus said the same thing to the Nephites who were NOT under Roman occupation and would have no idea what lesson was being taught.  A similar problem exists with using the phrase “whoever shall say to his brother Raca (a curse and term of hatred), shall be in danger of the council” in 3 Ne 12:22.  Committing ‘raca’ in Palestine resulted in being brought before the Jewish Sanhedrin or “council”.  As an Aramaic word, ‘raca’ would have no meaning to the Nephites, and the ‘council’ reference would also be meaningless.  If “The Book of Mormon” is a literal translation and the most correct of any book, how is this possible?

 

  1. The native American people did not use a 7-day week calendar, observe a Sabbath tradition, or even have a Sabbath legend.  It seems implausible to me that a people of Semitic origin would abandon this tradition.  It is also implausible that a people converted to Christianity and having worked metals that no artifact depicting the life of the Savior would survive.  Not a single one.  How is this possible?

 

  1. When Nephi went back to get the plates from Laban, he explains that they needed the record to help them keep the law of Moses.  If there were living “strictly” in accordance with the law of Moses, where in the book are the references to the Passover, the Feast of the Tabernacles, sabbatical years, jubilees, thank offerings, unleavened bread, ephods, usury, purification, circumcision, or unclean animals?  And since all of the people were of the tribe of Joseph, where are the Levites who alone had the authority to administer the rites?

 

  1. Nephi’s account has the heavily laden family leaving Jerusalem and travelling in the wilderness for three days, then camping on the shore of the Red Sea, a distance of 170 miles, through rugged and desolate terrain.  The Grand Canyon of the Middle East would have to be traversed, and they would still have to average more than 60 miles a day.  How is this possible?

 

  1. The account of the Jaredite submarines presents a horde of extreme difficulties.  I shall single out one.  The discussion of glass windows which could be “dashed to pieces” ignores the fact that the Romans would not invent glass-making for another 2000 years.  The phrase “The thought make reason stare” comes to mind.

 

  1. Michael Marquardt and other scholars have found over 300 quotations in the BoM that apparently came from prophets and apostles who lived after 600 B.C. when Lehi and his family left on their migration to the New World.  Most of these quotations appear in the King James wording, including the mistakes that were later corrected by Bible scholars.  How could the writers of the BoM obtain this information?  Why would their wording mimic all the KJV Bible errors?  For that matter, how did the writers of the BoM get such terms as “church”, “synagogue”, “gentile”, “baptism”, “Bible” and “Jesus Christ”?  None of these terms were defined or used prior to 600 B.C.

 

  1. The Mayas of Central America were an amazing civilization, that has only been recently (last 30 years) well understood and documented.  Experts have deciphered their 800 hieroglyphic signs, including an amazingly accurate calendar.  Their language has no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian, and neither do the languages of the Incas, Aztecs, Toltecs, or other New World peoples.  The Mayas used a base 20 mathematics system, and did their math vertically.  Their calendar began in 3114 B.C. and their civilization did not crumble until about 900 A.D.  In their peak, they numbered in the millions, with strongholds in the ‘narrow neck of land’ which responsible archaeologists suggest as the only (remotely) possible site for events in the BoM.  How is it possible that the Nephites felt they came to an uninhabited continent and never met the Mayas?  “Most L.D.S. literature on archaeology and The Book of Mormon ranges from factually and logically unreliable to kooky.  In general, it appears that the worse the book, the more it sells.”  - John L. Sorenson, BYU professor and Mormon anthropologist.  

 

  1. Even without DNA test results, the evidence that the American Indians are not of Hebrew origin is overwhelming (language, skeletal structure, customs, stone-age technology).  Every serious, unemotional, and unbiased investigator I know concludes that the origin of the American Indian is eastern Asia.   The Church has taken the position that the actual origin of the American Indian does not invalidate “The Book of Mormon” or undermine the teachings of Joseph Smith.  This position raises even more questions regarding prophesies and commandments in the D&C and teachings of virtually every prophet from Joseph Smith to Hinckley.  Since they all taught that the principal ancestors of the American Indian is the Lamanite, and such is not the case, then we should follow the counsel of Duet 18:22 and disregard their warnings?  When church members refer to Native Americans as Lamanites, this is commensurate to calling a black man a “nigger”, and is of great offense to informed Native Americans.  How should I use my influence to lovingly but assertively bring this bad habit to an end among church members?

 

  1. Apologists have set forth a limited geography theory with DNA being swallowed up by the other indigenous tribes.  These theories fall apart when you read, 2 Nephi 1:8 which explains that Lehi told his children that God had kept and preserved the land from “other nations” so the land would not be overrun, leaving them with no place for an “inheritance.”  Since this theory contradicts doctrine, it must be discarded.

 

  1. Parallels between Ethan Smith's "A View of the Hebrews" and “The Book of Mormon” appear too numerous to be a coincidence.  “A View of the Hebrews” was published some 7 years prior to “The Book of Mormon”, and Joseph Smith almost certainly had access to a copy of the book (it was published only 30 miles away from his home.  In fact, many believe Oliver Cowdery helped with the printing).  Plagiarism cannot be proven, but circumstantial evidence for plagiarism is strong.  If “The Book of Mormon” is indeed an original work, how is it possible that there are so many parallels and similarities?  (As a teacher, my experience has been that shared inaccuracies indicate plagiarism beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the case here.)  I have read the book “A View of the Hebrews” and attached my book report for reference.  A more lengthy comparison of the works was done by BH Roberts, General Authority of the church, and is available for review at <<http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/BOM/parallel.html>> or I have a personal copy available upon request.
  2. BH. Roberts lists parallels between Book of Mormon stories and Bible stories.  I will not take time to reiterate them, the reader is referred to Brother Roberts book “Studies of the Book of Mormon” and www.mormonstudies.com for a complete discussion.  One example is the similarity between the story of Alma the Younger and Paul in the New Testament.  Consider the similarities and identical sequences of events: Both were wicked and on missions of persecution on their day of conversion.  Both fell to the earth and had manifestations that were not understood by their traveling companions.  Both were asked by the Lord why they were fighting against Him.  Both became helpless: Paul was struck blind, Alma was struck dumb.  Both went without food for two or three days, then immediately converted and began preaching.  Both healed a cripple, both were cast into prison.  Both prayed for deliverance and the Lord loosed their bands and caused an earthquake to open the prisons and allow their miraculous escapes.  Since Joseph generally had an open King James version of the Bible next to his hat and peep stone, the evidence for plagiarism becomes more than strong.  The similarities between Lehi’s dream and a dream recorded in the journal of Joseph Smith Sr. is more than striking (see attached excerpt from the journal of Smith Sr.)  BH Roberts also points out the common phraseology between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and several individuals have compiled listings of common phrases.  BH Roberts goes on to point out the fantastic nature of the stories of the Book of Mormon, as compared to the Bible.  While it obviously pained him to say it, he was obligated to state what would be obvious to later generations: The Book of Mormon, when read by a Bible scholar, reads like a series of fairy tales, almost to the point of insulting the intellect of an informed reader.  Given all the evidence, how can an informed member ignore the apparent plagiarism of the Bible and the fantastic nature of the stories as being simply a combination of fiction and plagiarism?  
  3. I have been presented several articles that are so-called evidences ‘for’ the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  Since many church members have cited them as iron-clad evidence, it is appropriate to address them with unbiased scrutiny.  The first is the story of the Egyptian fellow that translated the Book of Mormon from English into Egyptian.  He noted that many of the awkward English phrases translated beautifully into Egyptian, which was a confirmation that the original text must have been written in Egyptian.  Also, several words, such as ‘ziff’ have meaning in Egyptian and no meaning in English.  Proof positive, right?  Well, I noticed in 1977 as I read the Book of Mormon in French how many of the awkward English phrases translated beautifully into French.  Also, there is the unmistakable French word ‘adieu’ in the Book of Mormon that has no English meaning.  Applying identical logic, we should therefore also conclude that the original Book of Mormon must have been written in French.   In reality, the English language, especially old English, is awkward and translating a work such as the Book of Mormon into any language is going to find ample phraseology improvements.  Finally, given the number of unusual terms in the Book of Mormon, just about any language is going to find a word or two with similarities.  It should also be pointed out that the Book of Mormon was supposedly written in REFORMED Egyptian taught to single individuals by non-native Egyptians over many generations in complete isolation from Egyptian people.  Given normal language evolution, the phraseology used to record the Book of Mormon would bear no resemblance to modern day Egyptian anyway.   Reformed Egyptian (if such a thing ever really existed) must have nothing in common with standard Egyptian characters since Joseph Smith had zero luck translating the Egyptian papyri that eventually became the Book of Abraham (see Book of Abraham section).  
  4. The second evidence ‘for’ the Book of Mormon has to do with the different writing styles found therein.  Since the Book of Alma has a different writing style than the Book of Helaman (for example), according to some expert somewhere (no peer corroboration), the Book of Mormon could not have been concocted by a single person (Joseph Smith).  Assuming that there are indeed significantly different writing styles present in the Book of Mormon, an argument could me made that this is a confirmation that Joseph Smith was using plagiarism and the writing styles and phraseologies changed as he changed source material documents.  The source materials could have been the Bible, Ethan Smith’s “A View of the Hebrews”, the Spaulding Manuscript, and material Joseph gleaned from sermons he had heard.  Some have suggested that Sidney Rigdon submitted complete sections of the Book of Mormon, but I find this theory somewhat less likely.  Another consideration is the evolution of the young Joseph Smith over the 7 year period from whence sprang the Book of Mormon.  I believe, based on my life experience, that anyone’s writing style changes most dramatically between ages 17 to age 24, and is strongly influenced by what that person is reading.   A common misconception among LDS is that each book in the Book of Mormon was written by the person the book is named after, which is not true.  405 of the original 521 pages (78%) of the Book of Mormon were supposed to have been written by Mormon, with Moroni writing 44 pages, Nephi writing 121, and others contributing a few pages each.  Helaman and Alma WERE supposedly written by a single man, Mormon.  The presence of different writing styles, if such exist, is judged as neither evidence for or against the truthfulness of the work.
  5. Another evidence ‘for’ the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is the apparent miracle of the ‘translation’.  The rapid dictation, how Joseph was able to restart exactly where he left off in the narrative, etc.  It turns out that the dictation of the Book of Mormon fits very comfortably into the category of ‘automatic writing’ that is well-documented.  Automatic writers have routinely produced very lengthy works in a very short time, picking up where they left off, even in mid-sentence, hours or days after having interrupted the dictation.  Some automatic writers have actually been able to pen a letter to a friend while earnestly dictating.  Other automatic writers have found their gift is heightened by gazing into a crystal or translucent stone.  The book “Jane Eyre” was produced via automatic writing, as well as “The Urantia Book”.  Automatic writers often feel their gift is of God and their works are inspired, which could have led Joseph to believe that he was called of God.  This explanation fits with the method of dictation: Joseph peering into his hat through a peep stone and no golden plates required.  It also fits with his inability to decipher Egyptian characters on the papyri 12 years later.

"Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found, including metalwork, buildings, and Norse inscriptions. Just six centuries earlier, the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no wheeled chariots or horses to pull them, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes." - Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost tribe, p. 199

How can an honest and informed person logically dismiss this evidence and continue to pretend that the civilizations and conditions presented in the Book of Mormon refer to a real people?

 

Witnesses to “The Book of Mormon”

 

Most church members lend credence to the powerful testimonies of the “three witnesses” and “eight witnesses”.  I have been among those, as was my father.  I was surprised to find out that the experiences of the witnesses were all through what was referred to as ‘second sight’ in the terminology of the day.  The seeing of the angel, seeing the plates, and even handling of the plates were not actual physical events for any of the witnesses.  It was only while they were carried away in vision did they experience anything.  The Whitmers were staunch believers in second sight and their visions and experiences smack of one-upmanship as I read the accounts.   Many of the witnesses were reluctant to sign the witness documents prepared by Joseph Smith due to the literal and physical tenor of the documents.  Martin Harris testified publicly that none of the signatories to “The Book of Mormon” saw or handled the physical records.  Stephen Burnett wrote the following in a letter dated 15 April 1838 to Lyman Johnson:

 

…”I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver or David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do so.”

 

On August 11 1838, Warren Parrish wrote: Martin Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses, has come out at last, and says that he never saw the plates, from which the book is purported to have been translated, except in vision and he further says that any man who says he has seen then in any other way is a liar, Joseph [Smith] not excepted.”

 

To me, this is a denial of the testimony text as written in the preface to “The Book of Mormon”.  When instructors and church leaders assert that none of the witnesses ever denied what they had seen/heard, this seems to be telling a half-truth at best.  I need to discuss this with a church leader as to the appropriate manner and forum in which the whole truth should be told.  Remaining silent on something so plain and important is interpreted by many as accord, which makes me uncomfortable, since I am not in agreement with what is being taught.

 

I was also surprised to find out that after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, a man named James J. Strang professed to be the successor to Joseph Smith, translating characters from metal plates.  Strang showed these plates to hundreds of people, produced 11 witnesses, and translated them, producing the “Book of the Law of the Lord”.   There is no direct evidence that any of the men ever denied their testimonies, which were similar to those in the preface to “The Book of Mormon”.  Three of the Whitmers, Martin Harris, Hiram Page, William Smith, and Lucy Smith all followed Strang’s leadership from 1846 to 1847.  This replication of an earlier pattern of belief gives us an idea that it may not have been as difficult as we might imagine having the witnesses accept Joseph’s claim of having gold plates as an ancient record.   Axiom: WHAT ONE MAN CAN DO ANOTHER MAN CAN DO.

 

And while we are on the subject of witnesses, 51 people willingly signed the following affidavit:

 

“We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community.  They were particularly famous for visionary projects, spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hidden in the earth; and to this day, large excavation may be seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures.  Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character…. “

 

When the account of the 3 and 8 reluctant witnesses to “The Book of Mormon” is mentioned in the Church, why do we ignore the statement of these willing and adamant witnesses? 

 

The Book of Abraham

 

The original papyrus scrolls that Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham were found in 1967 and authenticated by LDS and independent scholars.  Over a half dozen Egyptologists, including the expert hired by the Church, verified that the scrolls are Egyptian funerary documents typically found buried with mummies, and post-date the time of Abraham by 1500 years.  The information contained on these scrolls bears zero resemblance to the Book of Abraham and could not have been “in Abrahams own hand” as asserted by Joseph Smith.   Joseph’s own cross-reference showing the characters and the corresponding meanings is complete nonsense, according to every Egyptologist who has examined the documents, some of which are in Joseph Smith Jr.’s own hand, according to handwriting analysts.  With the Urim and Thummin and Joseph’s expertise developed during “The Book of Mormon” translation, the translation of the papyri should have been a two or three day effort.  The fact that it took three men about 8 months to ‘decipher’ raises a question regarding authenticity.  All of the participant diaries indicate that the work was a literal translation, not a revelation inspired by funerary documents and vignettes as some LDS apologists suggest.  None of the participants mention anything about funerary documents or excerpts from the Book of Breathings which are actually found on the papyri.  An attempt to answer this question is found in the “I have a Question” forum on lds.org, but the explanation is insufficient.  After examining all the facts, the serious investigator can only conclude that Joseph Smith was NOT capable of translating Egyptian.  And furthermore, the alphabet and grammar that Joseph took great pride in and quoted later in life were obviously contrived gibberish.  If Joseph Smith was indeed a Seer, had the Urim and Thummim, and God’s blessing to translate, plus a load of experience in translating “The Book of Mormon”, how is it possible that the papyrus scrolls could not be translated?  If the Pearl of Great Price is indeed a literal translation, in Abrahams’ own hand, as claimed by Joseph Smith and others in diary accounts, and noted in the Preface to the BoA, how does one explain this dichotomy?

 

With regard to the translation of the Book of Abraham, since Moroni kept the gold plates that were the purported source of “The Book of Mormon”, the translation of the Book of Abraham is the only opportunity that we have to judge whether Joseph Smith really could interpret Egyptian characters by the “gift and power of God”.  If Joseph Smith  could not translate these documents that yielded 11 pages of English text in 8 months (1.4 pages per month) with help, then how is it possible that he translated the 531 pages of “The Book of Mormon” in 19 months (28 pages per month) without help?

 

The Book of Abraham contains lengthy descriptions of astronomy and physics.  Some examples:

 

Explanation of facsimile #2, Fig. 5 we read; “… this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floese or the Moon, the Earth, and the Sun in their annual revolutions.  This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flo-is-es, or Ha-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.”

 

Abraham 3:1-9 there is a lengthy description of the reckoning of time.  The scripture states that “the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.”

 

The idea that some stars borrow their light from other stars was a short-lived theory among scientists in the 1830 timeframe.  The theory that there was some medium in space that transmitted power and conducted gravitational forces was prevalent until about 1920.  Now we know there is no medium.  The laws governing relativity and time have nothing to do with the night or day or proximity to a particular star, only relative velocity as a percentage of the speed of light.  This has been proven using atomic clocks and satellites.  Planet or star rotation does not create light, light is emitted from the thermonuclear fusion process in active stars.  None of the Book of Abraham theories on astro-physics match what has been discovered using the scientific method.  Latter-Day prophets have taught that true religion and true science will always agree, yet with the Book of Abraham there is direct contradiction.  How is this possible?   

 

Overwhelmed by evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) no longer considers the PoGP to be part of its canon of scripture.  When will the LDS Church face the music and follow suit? 

 

Joseph Smith History

 

The account of the first vision is not readily reconcilable with historical information.  The body of evidence indicates that Joseph experienced an epiphany or second sight experience, which was common and sort of an expected prerequisite for Protestant ministers of the day.  Neither Joseph Smith nor anyone else prior to 1838 referred to the vision as authority to act as God’s agent of the restoration.  No one, friend or foe, remembers any persecution or even a claim to have experienced a vision prior to 1827.  The persecution that began in 1827 was tied to money-digging and treasure hunting, not associated with a claim to have seen God.  Had Lucy heard her son say that Jesus Christ had personally instructed him to “to go not after them” and to not “join any” church because “all” of the ministers, creeds, and churches were “an abomination in His sight,” she and her several children certainly would not have joined the Presbyterians and worshipped with them from 1825 to 1828.  Historians agree that the (“great excitement”) revivals occurred in 1824-1825, citing fifteen documented sources.  No source can be found for an 1820 revival or any religious excitement that year.  Having a young man claim to have seen God and Jesus Christ would surely have been the talk of the town and found its way into local papers, letters of local inhabitants, diaries, especially the diaries of the Smith family.  There are no such accounts from that time period, not from friends, family, or enemies.  Such a lack of third-party evidence defies all logic and reason.  Early portrayals of the Godhead as a single entity in the “The Book of Mormon” would surely have brought forth questions in Josephs mind and not found their way into “The Book of Mormon”, and there would not have been any need for corrections to “The Book of Mormon” text after the first manuscript was drafted.  How can an honest and informed member of the church accept the Joseph Smith history as accurate in light of the surrounding circumstances: lack of third party corroboration, and contrary evidence?      

 

One of the many things that drew me to the Joseph Smith story was the unusual sequence of events that led up to obtaining the gold plates.  I thought the story of the multiple visions, waiting periods, etc. much too odd to be contrived by a young man.  Recent information now points to an uncanny number of parallels between the Joseph Smith History account and a series of folk tales written by ETA Hoffmann (ETAH).  A listing of each parallel would take pages to enumerate.  Not only are individual events paralleled, SEQUENCES OF EVENTS are shared between the two works.  One example is that the plates could only be delivered on the day of the fall equinox.  ETA Hoffmanns’ tale has the treasure also being delivered on the day of the fall equinox.   While it remains possible that the folk tales of ETAH merely influenced the fuzzy recollections of Joseph, or that ETAH had inspiration regarding the restoration of the true gospel, such is implausible (giant leap of faith at best).  How can an honest and informed member of the church accept the Joseph Smith history (especially the story of the coming forth of the golden plates) as an original work?     

 

In the trial of 1826, Joseph Smith was brought before the court on charges of fraud (money digging for profit).  While apologists are quick to assert that Joseph was never convicted of any crime, whether or not there was a conviction is beside the point.  At this trial, Joseph freely admits, under oath, that he was incapable of locating buried treasures using either his peep stone or while being carried away in vision.  Anyone that objectively studies the trial of 1826 will reach one sure conclusion: At this time of his life, Joseph Smith was in the business of making money by preying on the superstitions of the people.  Bear in mind that this is 6 years after the reported date of the ‘First Vision’.  Does it make logical sense that a young man of 19 years that had experienced a visitation from God would find his way into this line of business?  The money digging went on for years, this was not just a one-time foible or lark.  Objective historians agree that this early modus operandi set a pattern that lasted his whole life, while apologists dismiss this as just being a temporary weakness that Joseph was able to work through and put behind him.  Which is it?  In order for the members of the church to objectively examine the history of Joseph Smith, should not this information be brought up during church discussions on the subject?  If not, why?

 

Joseph Smith produced three versions of his history, the official history of Joseph Smith that is accepted as part of scripture was the third and last attempt.  The first two written histories made no mention of two personages in the vision.  It was only after other prominent church members began claiming that they had had visitations from heavenly beings did Joseph Smith ‘remember’ that he had experienced a visitation from God and Jesus Christ, and that he had received a special directive to be the leader of the restoration.   ANY trial lawyer or judge will tell you that a witness that changes his story with each telling is an unreliable witness and his testimony is always set aside.  For what possible reason would a rational and reasonable person place credence in such flimsy story-telling?

 

In summary, the Joseph Smith story fails all the truth tests – and rather miserably.  There is no third-party corroboration of any of the facts or events.   The story, if true, has people doing unreasonable and illogical things.  The highly questionable metamorphosis of the account really removes any doubt to an objective investigator: the story is contrived.  

 

It should also be mentioned that the stories that Joseph relates regarding baptism, restoration of the Priesthood, and other visitations from heavenly messengers follow the same pattern.  The memory and the recording of the event happens well after the supposed occurrence, and each event morphs from the metaphysical to the physical, and becomes more embellished with each telling.  In a court of law, testimony from such a source is SET ASIDE.    

 

Kinderhook ‘Translation’ Hoax

 

Smith’s journal for May 1, 1843 says: “I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, In Pike County, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound.  They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high.  The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides by ancient characters.  I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found.  He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom form the Ruler of heaven and earth.”

 

The six brass plates were actually fabricated out of copper by Wilber Fugate.  Fugate admitted having used acid to burn the engravings into the copper and make them look old, then placing them where they were sure to be found.   Smith fell headlong into this trap and was caught in a lie.  How can a reasonable member dismiss this behavior and accept other ‘translations’ by Smith in good faith?

 

Polygamy

 

Since I have polygamist ancestors on both my fathers’ and mothers’ sides of the family, this is not a trivial question or issue for me.  Questions about polygamy:

 

1.        Why did Joseph and other General Authorities marry young girls? 

Helen Mar Kimball, born 20 Aug 1828, married Joseph Smith May 1843 (14 years old)

Lucy Walker, born 30 Apr 1826, married Joseph Smith 1 May 1843 (17 years old)

Sarah Lawrence, born 13 May 1826, married Joseph Smith abt 11 May 1843 (nearly 17 years old)

Sarah Ann Whitney, born 22 Mar 1825, married Joseph Smith 27 Jul 1842 (17 years old)

Nancy Mariah Winchester, born 10 Aug 1828, married Heber C. Kimball 10 Oct 1844 (16 years old)

This seems to serve no practical purpose.  I was taught that the reasons for polygamy were to build up the kingdom rapidly and to take care of women whose husbands had been killed.  Fourteen-year-old girls are barely able to take care of themselves, let alone raise a family with a husband who is sharing time with 20 other women and their kids.  Need clarification on this one.

 

2.  Why did Joseph marry women that were already married?

Example: Zina Diantha Huntington born 31 Jan 1821.  Married Henry Bailey Jacobs on 7 March 1841.  Married Joseph Smith on 27 Oct 1841 while still married to Henry.  After Joseph’s martyrdom, married Brigham Young on 2 Feb 1846.  (Source: Official church family history web site: http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp)

This seems contradictory to D&C 132: 61, which says that to be justified in taking more than one wife, the woman must not be vowed to any other man.

 

3.  It is a documented fact (multiple accounts diaries, personal histories, and the LDS family search website) that Joseph Smith Jr. took multiple plural wives without the knowledge or consent of Emma.  He was also caught in adultery with Fanny Alger.  He persuaded women who were already married to marry him.  Most (or all) of these marriages were performed outside of the temple, also verifiable using the same sources and documented Church history of the temples.  Five different people (Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith, Benjamin F. Johnson, Mary Lighter, and Lorenzo Snow) assert that an angel of God with a sword commanded Joseph to institute polygamy or the angel would slay him.  This event goes contrary to everything I have come to believe regarding agency, angels, and the nature of God.  I can only conclude that this is a contrived vision to convince young women to marry him, which worked wonderfully well.  The scriptures tell us that in the mouths of two or three witnesses all things are established, so I (as will any sincere investigator) accept these marriages and the so-called threatening angel story as fact. This presents a dilemma for me.  How do I explain this to an investigator of the church?   The progression from adultery to spiritual wifery to polygamy to polyandry casts a large shadow of doubt over the revelations Joseph Smith Jr. received during the latter years of his life.  We are reminded frequently in the church that iniquity drives away the spirit and we lose any right to revelation.  How would it be possible for Joseph to continue to receive revelation from God if he was not keeping God’s commandments himself?