The Book of Mormon

Anachronism

When Shakespeare describes a clock striking in his play Julius Caesar, that's an anachronism, because the ancient Romans told time with sun-dials which don't strike: "Brutus: 'Peace! count the clock.'" (Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1, 201). It is tough for the historical novelist to avoid this kind of mistake. There are many features described in the Book of Mormon which are inappropriate for their time period, such as steel swords:

While the Old World archaeologist does not expect to encounter steel in the time frame specified, the New World archaeologist does not expect to encounter it at all, at least not until the Conquistadors come on the scene. Yet it's in there:

In response, Mormons point out that "steel" weapons are mentioned in the KJV:

"He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms." (Psalm 18:34 KJV).

It's not easy to determine what 'steel' meant to the KJV translators. Did it mean a 'hardened alloy' of unspecified composition, or did it mean what contemporary readers understand it to mean: iron with an admixture of carbon? What is clear is that, when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, everyone understood 'steel' to mean the latter. Adam Clarke wrote his Bible Commentary in the early years of the 19th century:

"A bow of steel is broken by mine arms. — All the versions render this: “Thou hast made my arm like a brazen bow.” A bow of steel is out of the question. In the days of David it is not likely that the method of making steel was known. The method of making brass out of copper was known at a very early period of the world; and the ancients had the art of hardening it, so as to work it into the most efficient swords." (Adam Clarke Commentary, Psalm 18:34).

The modern versions read "bronze." Although Joseph Smith uses a KJV-oid style that would have struck his readers as just the style in which a Holy Book should be written, he was not writing in the seventeenth century but in the nineteenth. Word meanings change over time. At the 'Meat Counter' in our local super-market, we expect to see cuts of animal flesh. In the KJV, 'meat' is 'food,' including Elijah's cake:

"And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again. . .And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God." (1 Kings 19:6-8 KJV).

Someone who does not understand these changing word-meanings can end up looking foolish, as does Joseph with his steel swords.

KJV Only

The reader of the Book of Mormon encounters many familiar phrases borrowed from the King James Version's Elizabethan English, like "And it came to pass." Beyond scattered phrases, whole chunks of Isaiah and Malachi and other Bible books are imported into the Book of Mormon. These excerpts are often word-for-word replicas of the KJV.

This is odd when you think of it. The Book of Mormon was translated from the "reformed Egyptian:" "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." (Book of Mormon, Mormon 9:32). Their version of Hebrew has also been altered: ". . .but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also. . ." (Mormon 9:33). The KJV is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text preserved by the synagogue. The KJV translators had no supernatural helps, neither peep-stone nor magic spectacles.

In the passage above Joseph has made the same decisions as the KJV translators, even arguable ones like rendering 'YHWH' as "Lord." Yet when he prepared his inspired Bible translation, he did not copy the KJV word for word; the Mormons do not believe, as some fundamentalists do today, that the KJV is an inspired translation.

There is likewise an extended excerpt from Isaiah in 2 Nephi. There are small differences of punctuation and wording as might be expected in a dictated text: "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem." (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 18:14, Isaiah 8:14).

It is easy to understand this word-for-word correspondence if Joseph is reading from a copy of the Bible he has in front of him. But this is not what he said he was doing.

White Supremacy

In the Book of Mormon, dark skin is understood to be God's curse on the unrighteous:

This understanding is reminiscent of an inventive Bible interpretation once popular amongst white racists, identifying the 'mark of Cain' with black skin. Because there is no suggestion in the text that 'black skin' is the mark of Cain, this interpretation requires a willing hearer, unperturbed by its arbitrary equivalences. Those who hold to it must be willing to overlook a great deal of information to the contrary, that God is no respecter of persons: "Then Peter opened his mouth and said: 'In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.'" (Acts 10:34-35).

Joseph Smith accepted this Bible interpretation: "And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them." (Book of Moses, Chapter 7, Section 22, Pearl of Great Price). Joseph dealt with the theory's defect: that Ham's son Cush ought to have been cursed instead of Canaan,-- by arbitrarily transforming Canaan into a black race: "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people." (Book of Moses, Chapter 7, Section 8).

It takes a lot of interpretive heavy lifting to transform a Book which tells the story of God's liberating His people from slavery in Egypt, into a pro-slavery tract. The reader must overlook the exodus, the jubilees, and all like victories of freedom, in favor of a boundless faith in the power of Noah's curses, once appropriately redirected.

While the offensive verses of the Book of Mormon remain in place, the Mormon church has thankfully stopped slapping African Americans in the face by denying them the priesthood. . .the males, at least. In this arena their teaching remains strange, to this outsider. Women who hope for a glorious eternity must first. . .marry well:

"At first, Hinckley seemed to qualify the idea that men could become gods, suggesting that 'it's of course an ideal. It's a hope for a wishful thing,' but later affirmed that 'yes, of course they can.' (He added that women could too, 'as companions to their husbands.')," (Gordon Hinckley, quoted in Time magazine article, August 4, 1997, Kingdom Come: Salt Lake City was just for Starters, by David Van Biema)

Women fly upward to godhood on their husband's coat-tails. But what about those women who marry poorly? Marrying is a little like buying a lottery ticket. Do you think Bill told Hillary, before their marriage, how he intended to behave after? Women find their hopes for eternal happiness hanging upon their husband's behavior. But is this Biblical? When has one mortal's eternal hope been held in the hands of another human being? The Lord taught,

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28).

But if Mormon teaching on the afterlife is true, one must fear one's spouse, who is able to drag one downward from the blessed hope otherwise attainable. Paul did not hint at such a state of affairs, when he counseled women married to unbelievers:

"And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him." (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Admittedly this strange teaching only arose years later and is not taught in the Book of Mormon.

Faith Alone

In the sixteenth century, a German monk named Martin Luther discovered, in Paul's letter to the Romans, a great Bible truth: that salvation is by faith alone. Church authorities at Rome objected; salvation, they explained, and later solidified into dogma at the Council of Trent, is by faith plus works.

In 1809 preacher Alexander Campbell came from Ireland to America to join his father's ministry. His message sounded novel to Protestant ears, though to Roman Catholics it would have sounded quite familiar. He argued from John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 that baptism was an essential precondition to salvation. He found in Acts 2:38 a three-step 'salvation plan:'

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38).

This argument imports into Peter's two commands and one promise in this verse the following logical structure: if you repent and if you are baptized, then and only then will you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is the same as the new birth of John 3:5 without which no man can see heaven. This logic is absent from the grammar of the sentence, which fails to make any of the three elements contingent on any other. Moreover baptism is neither a necessary condition for the gift of the Holy Ghost: Cornelius and his people spoke in tongues without baptism (Acts 10:47), nor is it a sufficient condition: the Samaritans received water baptism without speaking in tongues (Acts 8:16). Moreover, realizing there is a diversity of gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4), it is not clear why Peter's "gift" would be identified with the new birth.

Except for those who have been long habituated to viewing Acts 2:38 as a 'salvation plan,' most readers can see no reason to identify it as such. Peter's audience asks, not 'What shall we do to be saved?' but simply 'What shall we do?' God's children eagerly obey Peter's two commands and treasure the promise he gave, but fail to see the merit in isolating this verse of scripture as a 'salvation plan.' Not only is Acts 2:38 nowhere identified as the 'salvation plan,' but neither the phrase 'salvation plan' nor 'plan of salvation' is anywhere found in the Bible.When inquirers do ask how to be saved, the answer is not the Acts 2:38 Salvation Plan but simply this:

"And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:30-31).

Who holds the Biblical high ground on this question: the sixteenth-century monk Martin Luther, or the Catholics/Campbellites?:

The author of the Book of Mormon is an acolyte of Alexander Campbell. The sought-after phrase, missing from the Bible, is here found: "For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation?" (Book of Mormon, Jarom 1:2). Moreover, said salvation plan follows the pattern laid down in Acts 2:38:

Notice that the logical structure which Alexander Campbell and his followers sought in Acts 2:38 but which is not present in the grammar of that verse, is here explicitly stated: if you are baptized, then you will receive the Holy Ghost. Campbell's associate Sidney Rigdon found here, at long last, the missing 'scriptural' justification for the celebrated three-step 'Salvation Plan.' Baptism is stated to be a necessary precondition of salvation in the Book of Mormon:

Alexander Campbell did not appreciate the 'help,' and made sure everybody knew it:

Alexander Campbell made much of microscopic issues, like what should be painted on the sign-board out in front of the church. It just had to be:

The Book of Mormon is not the worst thing Joseph Smith gave the world, but one of the best. When chided on grounds of polytheism, the Mormons, disingenuously, challenge their critics to find polytheism in the Book of Mormon. It can't be found there, though readers of the Book of Abraham and King Follett Discourse know very well where it can be found. The theological error the Book of Mormon does teach, namely modalism, seems to 'rub off' on few of its readers. The Independence, Missouri Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches neither polygamy nor polytheism. Though their efforts to clear Joseph Smith of these heresies fail to convince, certainly he did not teach these errors in the Book of Mormon. Other religious communities have embraced pious forgeries without suffering lasting harm; Thomas Aquinas thought that the author who wrote as Dionysius the Areopagite was who he claimed to be.

Joseph's venture into the field answers a skeptical argument against the faith, namely: if Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, why were some races, indeed certain continents, not given the word? His answer: they were. Not only is this a skeptical argument against the gospel, it is also a point Calvinists dwell upon. As things stand, tragically, Joseph Smith's masterpiece serves too often to entice the gullible down into the polytheistic swamp of his later teachings.

Dearly Beloved

In nineteenth century America, the language of the King James Version was already archaic, though still comprehensible. This weighty, beautiful and slightly strange language was just the way folks expected to hear God talk. Joseph delivered the goods. It would have been remarkable had he gotten the language just right, given its remove from his time and place. He didn't. Among other wonders, Joseph gives us 'beloved' as a transitive verb:

Last Chance

The Book of Mormon teaches that it is in this lifetime only that men can seek salvation:

His understanding on this point would later slip, under the pressure of the small number of followers attracted by his preaching.

Strange Fire

Lehi, American immigrant from Judaea, as told in the Book of Mormon, is a descendent of Joseph:

Under the law of Moses, only some are entitled to offer sacrifice:

In spite of not being qualified under the law of Moses to offer sacrifice, Lehi nevertheless does so, while sojourning in the Old World wilderness:

Perhaps these future migrants to the New World thought themselves under a different covenant, and in receipt of a special revelation? This possibility is ruled out by the Book of Mormon, which insists Lehi's descendants remained under Moses' law, even many years after migrating to America:

When this predicament is presented to Mormons, they explain that Lehi was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. This great promise is made to the Messiah:

But it is not apparent that this promise, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek," is offered promiscuously to all those under the law of Moses who are otherwise disqualified for the priesthood. If it were, why had King Uzziah to remain a leper till the day of his death, for offering incense to the Most High?:

What persons were disqualified from officiating at the altar under the Mosaic covenant, if all could claim the rights of the partriarchal age? Yet plainly some were disqualified. It seems here we see our author peeping out at us, an ingenious, but unlearned, Bible student, 'caught' not knowing a descendent of Joseph could not offer sacrifice under Moses' law.

Secret Combinations

The Book of Mormon was written at a time of anti-Freemasonry polemics. Pamphleteers linked the Jacobin terror which had laid waste to France to this secret society. At the time he wrote the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith lined up with the anti-Freemasonry side:

Joseph's argument is not that secret oaths and combinations are things neutral in themselves which became bad when the Nephites used them to conceal murder and robbery, but rather that these things are evil in themselves, suggested to mankind by Satan. Mormon 8:27 warns of "secret combinations and the works of darkness," as do many other verses as readers may verify by checking the 'secret combinations' listing in the Index of their Book of Mormon.

Yet in spite of the Book of Mormon's strong condemnation of secret oaths and secret combinations, Joseph ended his life a Freemason. Besieged by a mob in an Illinois jail, he called out for help from his fellow Masons, not his fellow believers. Masons report that many of the hand-signs, passwords and props of Mormon temple worship are cribbed from Masonic ceremony.

Men who hold themselves forth as prophets, as did Joseph Smith and Mohammed ibn Abdallah, may well be their own first converts, and sincerely believe God lent them their material. The reader still must examine whether He has spoken or has not spoken. Yet if the 'prophets' don't take their own vocation seriously, it is hard to see why anyone else should. If Joseph sincerely believed that God had condemned 'secret combinations' in the Book of Mormon, why would he then go and join one?

The Temple

Not only did Moses restrict what persons can officiate at sacrifices, his law restricts the places at which such offerings can be made:

This provision of the law is also ignored, without explanation, by Lehi and his descendants. They built their own temples in the New World and offered sacrifice there:

If they were indeed "offer[ing] sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses," they would be making these offerings at Jerusalem instead of the New World, as Deuteronomy 12:13-14 specifies. But the Book of Mormon claims that this group remained under the law of Moses for many years after their journey to the New World:

Today, Orthodox Jews do not offer the animal sacrifices of the old covenant, because the one place where this may lawfully be done was destroyed by the pagan Romans in 70 A.D. What did Lehi's tribe know that these people do not?