|
#16 The Fact On The Mormon Church
16. What intractable problems face the Book
of Mormon?
Dr. Hugh Nibley, considered by many Mormons to
be one of the greatest scholars in the Church, declares, "The Book of Mormon can
and should be tested. It invites criticism." Tenth president Joseph Fielding
Smith said that the evidence for it "internally and externally is overwhelming."
But unfortunately, the only evidence is over-whelming negative.
First, although the Church denies it, there is little doubt that, given
Smith's claims, the Book of Mormon was translated by occult means. Smith put a
magical "seer" stone into a hat, and then buried his face in the hat to exclude
light. Next, words in "reformed Egyptian" (no such language is known to exist)
magically appeared with their translation, and Smith spoke the translation to a
scribe who wrote it down. One of Smith's many wives, Emma Smith, confesses: "In
writing for your father, I frequently wrote day after day...He sitting with his
face buried in his hat, with a stone in it, and dictating hour after hour..."
In addition, the very content of the Book of Mormons makes it impossible to
accept it as a divine revelation. The Book Of Mormon claims to be a
translation of ancient writings on gold plates. These plates were supposedly
written at least 1,400 years ago and detailed the history of the Jewish "Nephites"
from 600 B.C. through A.D. 421. But it is virtually impossible that records
written 1,400 years prior to the time of Joseph Smith should detail specific
social, political, and religious concerns unique to nineteenth-century America.
In a scholarly work for which she was excommunicated from the Mormon Church
(No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith), Fawn Brodie discusses
the reasons supporting a nineteenth-century origin for the Book of Mormon
commented:
This prophet Smith, through his stone
spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi in his Book of Mormon every error and
almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.
Why would 1,400 to 2,400 year-old records deal
with distinctly nineteenth-century theological and political disputes? This is
certainly puzzling unless, of course, they were not 1,400 to 2,400 years old.
Even noted Mormon historian B. H. Roberts confessed that Joseph Smith alone
could have written the Book of Mormon.
But the content of the Book or Mormon presents further difficulties. For
example, there are many clearly demonstrated plagiarisms. Material has been
taken from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (1823), book that was
available to Joseph Smith, as well as from the King James Bible. Some 27,00
words from the King James Bible are found in the Book of Mormon.
But if the Book of Mormon was first written between 600 B.C. and A.D. 421,
how could it possibly contain such extensive quotations from the King James
Bible, not to be written for another 1,200 years to 2,000 years. The Tanners
have listed, one by one, 400 verses and portions of verses quoted from New
Testament in the Book Of Mormon in their book The Case Against Mormonism.
The Book of Mormon even contains King James Bible translation errors.
For example, in 2 Nephi 14:5 (Isaiah 4:5) the correct translation of the Hebrew
chupaah is "canopy." not "defense." In 2 Nephi 15:25 (Isaiah 5:25) the
correct translation of the Hebrew suchah is "refuse," not "torn."
Another problem for the Book of Mormon is archaeology, a major embarrassment
to the Mormon Church. Mormon missionaries continue to claim that the science of
archaeology substantiates the Book of Mormon, but whether we consider the
alleged cities, persons, animals, fabrics, metals, wars and war implements,
kings, palaces, or crops, all the evidence points to their nonexistence. Gordon
Fraser comments:
Mormon archaeologists have been trying for
years to establish some evidence that will confirm the presence of the
{Mormon} church in America. There is still not a scintilla of evidence, either
in the righteous philosophy of the ancient writings or in the presence of
artifacts, that lead to such a belief.
To show how embarrassing this situation is,
consider that Mormon missionaries often claim that the Smithsonian Institution
or other professional organizations have utilized the Book on Mormon as an
archaeological guide. In fact, the Smithsonian Institution has received so many
inquires concerning this that they actually return a standard form-letter
denying it. The first of many points they make in their rebuttal of Mormon
claims is, "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any
way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection
between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."
Further, its Bureau of American Ethnology asserts, "There is no evidence
whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that
pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christian or the Bible."
Even the prestigious National Geographic Society has flatly denied Mormon
missionary claims:
With regard to the cities mentioned in The
Book of Mormon, neither representatives of the National Geographic Society
nor archaeologists connected with any other institution of equal prestige have
ever used The Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle
America or elsewhere.
No Book of Mormon cities have ever been
located, no Book of Mormon person, place, nation, or name had been found, no
Book of Mormon artifacts, no Book of Mormon scriptures, no Book of Mormon
inscriptions, no Book of Mormon gold plates-nothing that demonstrates the Book
of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.
By contrast, the archaeological evidence for the Bible is so convincing that
even a former skeptic such as the great archaeologist Sir William Ramsey became
converted against Mormon claims is so devastating that prominent Mormon
archaeologist Thomas Stewart Ferguson quit the Mormon Church and repudiated its
prophet.
In conclusion, anyone who wishes can prove to their own satisfaction that the
Book of Mormon cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Its occult method of
translation, plagiarisms, internal inconsistencies, archaeological lack of
verification, and many other problems reveal that the Mormon Church is in
serious error when it claims otherwise.
Taken from The Facts On The Mormon Church, by
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, published by Harvest House Publishers.
|