Criticism of the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon, published in 1830 by American religious leader Joseph Smith, has been the subject of criticism relating to its origin, text, and historical accuracy. Ancient origin: Scholars reject Smith's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon was originally an ancient native-American record written on golden plates, and that God gave him the power to translate it into English. Critics note that there is no physical proof of the existence of golden plates; Smith said that the angel Moroni reclaimed the plates once he had completed the translation. To provide support towards the existence of the plates, Smith included two statements in the Book of Mormon saying that the Book of Mormon witnesses had been shown the plates, and their testimony is typically published at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. While none of these men ever retracted their statement, critics nevertheless discount these testimonies for varying reasons, one of which is because most of these men were closely interrelated. In later years Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, is recorded to have confessed that none of the witnesses saw the plates with their natural eyes but only through a vision. Most linguists, archeologists, and historians do not regard the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin. In 1834 a publication by Eber D. Howe claimed that Smith had plagiarized an unpublished manuscript written by Solomon Spalding. Scholars today have varying theories about the true authorship of the Book of Mormon, but most conclude that Smith composed the book himself, possibly with the help of Oliver Cowdery, drawing from information and publications available in his time, including the King James Bible, The Wonders of Nature, and View of the Hebrews. The evidence indicates that the Book of Mormon is in fact an amalgamation of ideas that were inspired by Joseph's own environment (new) and themes from the Bible (old).- Grant H. Palmer Existence of golden plates: Two separate sets of witnesses, a set of three and a set of eight, testified as having seen the golden plates, the record from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Critics, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and the Institute for Religious Research note several pieces of evidence that they argue call into question the authenticity of the experience, including letters and affidavits in which Martin Harris stated that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates, and that his own witness was more spiritual than physical. Additionally, each of the Three Witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer) left the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime and considered Smith to have been a fallen prophet. Harris and Cowdery later returned to the church. However, the Institute for Religious Research disputes the sincerity of their conversion and return. Apologists note that the witnesses in most cases affirmed their witness until their death, and claim that the aforementioned affidavits and letters are either fraudulent, or otherwise not reliable. In 1881 Whitmer, the one witness who never returned to the church, issued an affidavit reaffirming his testimony of the experience. Text and language: Historians view the language patterns, phrases, and names in the Book of Mormon as evidence that it is not authentic. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from a language called Reformed Egyptian. Archaeologists and Egyptologists have found no evidence that this language ever existed. However, Hugh Nibley, a Mormon apologist, argues that Reformed Egyptian is actually Meroitic Egyptian. Furthermore, official LDS church commentary on the Book of Mormon says that at least some ancestors of Native Americans came from the Jerusalem area; however, Native American linguistic specialists have not found, so far to date, any Native American language that appears to be related to languages of the ancient Near East. Supporters point out the interesting elements of the creation drama that turn up in temple, tomb, or coffin texts from ancient Egypt that is described in detail in the Book of Mormon as the coronation of King Mosiah long before these ancient texts were understood by Egyptologists. Supporters of the Book of Mormon claim it uses chiasmus—a figure of speech utilizing inverted parallelism—and claim it is evidence to support the book's ancient origin. Critics such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner argue that chiasmus in the Book of Mormon are a characteristic of Joseph Smith's speech pattern and not evidence of antiquity. They cite chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Moses which were not translated from an ancient text as evidence. Critics claim that language patterns in the Book of Mormon indicate that it is merely a repetition of rhetorical patterns found in the Old Testament. They point out that the Book of Mormon contains many words and phrases that are not consistent with the time frame or location of the stories included in the book. Some critics theorize that Smith derived the account of the golden plates from treasure-hunting stories of William Kidd. Critics base this theory on the similarity of the names from Smith's account—Moroni and Cumorah—to the location Moroni, Comoros, related to Kidd's hunt for treasure. Apologists argue that it was unlikely that Smith had access to this material since at the time of the writing and publishing of the Book of Mormon his family were living in backwoods America, were very poor and there was no public library available to read such a book. Translation: The only thing Joseph Smith ever said about the translation process was "through the medium of the urim and thummim I translated the record, by the gift and power of God." Martin Harris, Joseph's second scribe, and David Whitmer, a witness of Joseph translating the plates to Oliver Cowdery, both describe the process as an exact word-for-word translation. Modern LDS scholars tend to fall into two schools: tight control and loose control. Those who believe in tight control interpretation believe Joseph had very little leeway in the words used in dictating the Book of Mormon (but without being restricted to exact word-for-word). Those who believed in loose control interpretation believe that "'ideas were revealed to Joseph Smith' and he put them 'into his own language.'" The significance of the translation process is how errors in the text are defended. Biblical language: The Book of Mormon claims to be the original writings of Nephite leaders in ancient America, but it contains extensive quotation of the 17th century edition of the King James Bible (KJV) and the Deuterocanonical books, which Joseph Smith's bible had as well. Furthermore, the language of the Book of Mormon mimics the Elizabethan English used in the KJV with 19th century English mixed into it. The Book of Mormon quotes 25,000 words from the KJV Old Testament and over 2,000 words from the KJV New Testament. Indeed, there are numerous cases where the Nephite writers mimic wording from the New Testament—a document to which they had no access. Here are some parallels with the Deuterocanonical Books and the Book of Mormon. In particular, 2 Maccabees includes the name "Nephi". Names: The names in the Book of Mormon can be interpreted as problematic. Critics believe Joseph Smith came up with all the names, noting that Joseph owned a King James Bible with a table listing all the names used in the Bible. Many Book of Mormon names are either biblical, formed from a rhyming pattern, changed by a prefix or suffix, or Greek in etymology. Furthermore, Jaredites and Nephites shared names despite the Jaradites being of a different time, place, and language than the Nephites. Lastly, some people would occasionally name their sons after their fathers, something not practiced in antiquity. Historical accuracy: Critics discredit the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. They note various issues, including anachronisms and lack of archaeological and genetic evidence. Anachronisms: Critics point out that the Book of Mormon contains references to various plants and animals (horses, swine, etc.) and technologies (chariots, steel, etc.) that did not exist in the Americas at the time of the story. Apologists offer varying views on these anachronisms, typically countering them in one of two ways. One claim is that archaeological evidence may exist that has not yet been found. Another is that Joseph Smith used English words in a generic way, sometimes referring to an item other than that which the direct English word would imply. Archaeology: The Book of Mormon is held by Mormons to be a historical account of actual peoples living in the Americas. It follows to reason then that evidence of their inhabitance exists. To date, no such evidence has been found. There have been no artifacts of any kind found validating the Book of Mormon, nor any other archeological evidence. Critics point out that there are many inconsistencies and implausibilities in the story of the Israelites coming from the Mid-East to the Americas, and in the geographical descriptions of the lands in the Americas in which the stories take place. Scholars currently have no definitive location for the Book of Mormon setting, but many believe that Mesoamerica is the location. Native Americans and genetics: The Book of Mormon suggests that the Native Americans are descended from people who came to the Americas by boat from the Middle East. However, scientists have used techniques involving genetic markers to conclude that Native American genes are East Asian and not Middle Eastern in origin. Apologists argue that 1) not all Native Americans are Lamanite and 2) the Middle Eastern genes in Native Americans who are Lamanite may have been diluted beyond what can now be detected or lost in time through genetic shifts such as founder effect, bottleneck effect, genetic drift, or admixture. Some evidence possibly supports DNA relics in genes among Native Americans from areas of central North America originating from European ancestry as early as 15,000 years ago, although this would be much too early for the timescale presented in the Book Of Mormon. Population size and the Book of Mormon: Critics challenge the viability of the population size and growth of the Book of Mormon people. M. T. Lamb may have been the very first critic to suggest that the Book of Mormon has an unrealistic population growth rate. Modern studies on population size and growth have been done by John Kunich and FARMS writer James Smith. Kunich's analysis agrees with Lamb's that the Book of Mormon presents an unrealistic growth rate for the population, but Smith disagrees, and says that the growth rate is realistic. Relation to the Book of Abraham: Critics point out that Joseph Smith also translated the Book of Abraham. Unlike the Book of Mormon, fragments of the documents from which Smith translated the Book of Abraham are available for inspection; Egyptologists find no resemblance between the original text and Smith's translation. Supporters point out that the Church has never claimed that the fragments of papyri which include facsimile 1, 2, and 3 are where Joseph Smith obtained his material for the Book of Abraham. These fragments are from the Egyptian Book of the Dead which was just one of the scrolls from Egypt that Joseph Smith had in his possession. When these fragments were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum many years ago, Hugh Nibley wrote a book called "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An Ancient Egyptian Endowment" showing how the fragments that had been discovered had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham but everything to do with Egyptian funeral texts from "The Book of the Dead". Textual revisions: Critics also challenge the divine origin of the Book of Mormon by noting the numerous revisions that have been made to the text. Though most changes are small spelling and grammar corrections, critics claim that even these are significant in light of Smith's claims of divine inspiration. Critics assert that some of these changes were systematic attempts to hide the book's flaws.