By Walter Martin
Anachronisms
and Contradictions
Not
only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James
Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on
the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people.
The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous
barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a
“compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had
been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor
student of history and of Hebrew customs.
Laban,
mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi
4:9), makes use of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have
had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also had steel swords (Ether
7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote
to 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of
the Scriptures indicate that the word translated steel in the Old
Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly rendered
bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the
Hebrew word , probably meaning iron.
William
Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the
Book of Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient
Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as
a possible justification for the rendering of steel in the Book of
Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite
steel with the ‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old
Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew word for bronze.”
The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon
is that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries
of Joseph Smith have claimed that Smith could not continue
“translating” the gold plates unless the scribe read each word
back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should
really have been bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book
was translated by the gift and power of God, since it shows that
errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation.
Mormons
sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet
invented compass (known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the
fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from thence we fetched a
compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute
this subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there
we made a circle.”
Added
to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not
only contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations
purporting to come from the same God who inspired the Book of Mormon.
The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1)
records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon
(Alma 7:9, 10) states:
“the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers.”
The
Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was
Bethlehem described as a separate town in the Bible. The
contradiction is irreconcilable.
Another
area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon
concerns sin and Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8
states the doctrine that “little children are whole, for they are
not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken
from them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight
cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today’s schools. The
Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which places sin at
the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to
the sin and guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made
(Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it clearly states that “there is
none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12).
There
are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself,
if indeed it is supposed that He had anything to do with the
inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the
Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph
Smith.
In
the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the
remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism:
“Yea, blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a remission of their sin. Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.”
But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated:
“All those who humble themselves and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”
Mormon
theologians conspicuously omit any serious discussion of the
contradiction.
Joseph
Smith did not limit his contradictions to baptism; indeed, polygamy
is a classic example of some of his maneuvering.
“Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 132:34, 32).
The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states:
“Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of woman” (Jacob 2:26–28).
It
appears that Smith could manufacture revelations at will, depending
upon his desires. In the last instance, his reputation and subsequent
actions indicate that sex was the motivating factor.
A
final example of the confusion generated between the Book of Mormon
and other “inspired” revelations is found in this conflict
between two works in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses and
the Book of Abraham.
“I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest” (Moses 2:1).
The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view and states:
“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).
Just
how it is possible to reconcile these two allegedly equal
pronouncements from Mormon revelation escapes this author, and the
Mormons themselves appear reluctant to furnish any concrete
explanation.
The
question of false prophecies in Mormonism has been handled adequately
in a number of excellent volumes, but it should be pointed out that
Joseph Smith drew heavily upon published articles both in newspapers
and magazines. In fact, one of his famous prophecies concerning the
Civil War is drawn chiefly from material already published at the
time. In the History of the Church, Volume 1, page 301, Joseph Smith
states, “Appearances of troubles among the nations became more
visible this season than they had previously been since the Church
began her journey out of the wilderness. The people of South
Carolina, in convention assembled (in November), passed ordinances,
declaring their state a free and independent nation.” From this we
know that Smith could have been aware of South Carolina’s
succession as early as November 1832. If not in November, he could
have known about this from an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser
& Patriot, December 10, 1832. This was a full fifteen days before
Smith’s prophecy, and the Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde was in Boston
that day.
Smith
declared in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 87:
“At the rebellion of South Carolina the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain and then war shall be poured out upon all nations . And slaves shall rise up against their masters and that the remnants shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.”
Though
the Civil War did break out some years after Smith’s death in 1844,
England did not become involved in any war against the United States.
“All nations” were not involved in war as was prophesied. The
slaves did not rise up against “their masters,” and the
“remnants” who were Native Americans were themselves vexed by the
Gentiles, being defeated in war and confined to reservations.
Prophet
Smith was an extremely ineffective prophet here, as well as in
Doctrine and Covenants 124:22-23, 59, when he prophesied that he
would possess the house he built at Nauvoo “for ever and ever.”
The
fact of the matter is that neither Joseph nor his seed “after him”
lived from “generation to generation” in the Nauvoo house.
According to The Comprehensive History of the Church 1:160, “The
Nauvoo House was never completed; and after its unfinished walls had
stood unprotected for a number of years and were crumbling to decay,
they were taken down; the foundations were torn up and the excellent
building stone of which they were constructed sold for use in other
buildings in and about Nauvoo.” However, the LDS church has rebuilt
the house in “Nauvoo” and offers it as a tourist attraction.
These
and other instances indicate that Smith was not only a poor scribe
but a false prophet, and his prophecy concerning the restoration of
Israel to Palestine clearly reveals that he anticipated the
millennium in his own lifetime, whereas in reality the prophecy of
Ezekiel 37 began to be fulfilled in 1948, more than a hundred years
after Smith’s death.
The
question quite naturally arises in summing up the background of the
Book of Mormon: Where did the book come from, since it obviously did
not come from God? The answer to this has been propounded at great
length by numerous students of Mormonism, particularly E. D. Howe,
Pomeroy Tucker, and William A. Linn.
All
the aforementioned concur that the Book of Mormon is probably an
expansion upon the writings of Solomon Spaulding, a retired minister
who was known to have written a number of “romances” with
biblical backgrounds similar to those of the Book of Mormon. The
Mormons delight to point out that one of Spaulding’s manuscripts,
entitled “Manuscript Story,” was discovered in Hawaii more than
100 years ago, and it differed in many respects from the Book of
Mormon.
But
in his excellent volume The Book of Mormon, Dr. James D. Bales makes
the following observation, which is of great importance and agrees in
every detail with my research:
It
has long been contended that there is a connection between the Book
of Mormon and one of Solomon Spaulding’s historical romances. The
Latter-day Saints, of course, deny such a connection.
What
if the Latter-day Saints are right and there is no relationship
between the Book of Mormon and Spaulding’s writings? It simply
means that those who so contend are wrong, but it proves nothing with
reference to the question as to whether or not the Book of Mormon is
of divine origin.
One
could be wrong as to what man, or men, wrote the Book of Mormon, and
still know that it was not written by men inspired of God. One can
easily prove that the Book of Mormon is of human origin. And, after
all, this is the main issue. The fundamental issue is not what man or
men wrote it, but whether it was written by men who were guided by
God. We know that men wrote it, and that these men, whoever they
were, did not have God’s guidance. This may be illustrated by
Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures—the textbook of
Christian Science churches. Mrs. Eddy claims to have been its author,
under God’s direction. There are others who claim she reworked and
enlarged a manuscript of Mr. Quimby and the evidence seems to prove
that such is the case. But what if those who so maintained failed to
prove their case? Would that prove that it was inspired of God? Not
at all. It would prove only that Quimby’s manuscript had nothing to
do with it. But it would not prove that some other uninspired being
did not write it. Regardless of what human being or beings wrote
Science and Health, it is of human, not divine origin. Just so the
Book of Mormon is of human origin and uninspired, even though it were
impossible to prove what particular man wrote it.
It
has not been maintained that all the Book of Mormon was written by
Spaulding. Thus, it has not been claimed that the theological
portions were put in by him. Those portions bear the imprint of
Smith, Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon (see the proof offered in Shook’s
The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, pages 126ff.). It is
maintained, however, that some things, including a great deal of
Scripture, were added to one of Spaulding’s manuscripts and that
his work was thus transferred into the Book of Mormon (see the
testimony of John Spaulding, Solomon’s brother; Martha Spaulding,
John’s wife): They maintained that the historical portion was
Spaulding’s. (E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unveiled, 1834, 278ff; Shook,
The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, 94ff).
The
Mormons contend that the discovery of one of Spaulding’s
manuscripts demonstrates that it was not the basis of the Book of
Mormon.
“I
will here state that the Spaulding manuscript was discovered in 1884,
and is at present in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. On
examination it was found to bear no resemblance whatever to the Book
of Mormon. The theory that Solomon Spaulding was the author of the
Book of Mormon should never be mentioned again—outside a museum.”
(William A. Morton, op. cit., 6.)
There are three errors in the above paragraph: viz., that Spaulding wrote but one manuscript; that the manuscript discovered in 1884 is the one that non-Mormons have claimed constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon; that the manuscript in Oberlin bears no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon.
(a)
Spaulding wrote more than one manuscript. This was maintained by D.
P. Harlburt [Hurlbut] and Clark Braden before the Honolulu manuscript
was found (Charles A. Shook, op. cit., 77). Spaulding’s daughter
also testified that her father had written “other romances.”
(Elder George Reynolds, The Myth of the “Manuscript Found,” Utah,
1833, 104). The present manuscript story looks like a rough,
unfinished, first draft.
(b)
The manuscript found in Honolulu was called a “Manuscript Story”
and not the “Manuscript Found.” This Honolulu manuscript, The
Manuscript Story, was in the hands of anti-Mormons in 1854. However,
they did not claim that it was the manuscript which was the basis of
the Book of Mormon. It was claimed that another manuscript of
Spaulding was the basis of the Book of Mormon, (Charles A. Shook, op.
cit., 77, 15, 185. The “Manuscript Found or Manuscript Stop” of
the late Rev. Solomon Spaulding, Lamoni, Iowa: Printed and Published
by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1885,
10).
(c)
Although the Manuscript Story has not been regarded as the Manuscript
Found, which constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon, there is a
great deal of resemblance between the Manuscript and the Book of
Mormon. These points of similarity can be accounted for on the basis
that the Manuscript Story was the first, and rough draft of one of
Spaulding’s works, which he reworked into the Manuscript Found.
“Howe,
in 1854, published a fair synopsis of the Oberlin manuscript now at
Oberlin (Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288) and submitted the original
to the witnesses who testified to the many points of identity between
Spaulding’s Manuscript Found and the Book of Mormon. These
witnesses then (in 1834) recognized the manuscript secured by
Harlburt and now at Oberlin as being one of Spaulding’s, but not
the one that they asserted was similar to the Book of Mormon. They
further said that Spaulding had told them that he had altered his
original plan of writing by going farther back with his dates and
writing in the old scripture style, in order that his story might
appear more ancient” (Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288; Theodore
Schroeder, The Origin of the Book of Mormon, Re-Examined in Its
Relation to Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found,” 5).
This
testimony is borne out by the fact that there are many points of
similarity between the manuscript in Oberlin College and the Book of
Mormon.
It
is fairly well established historically, then, that the Mormons have
attempted to use a manuscript that is admittedly not the one from
which Smith later copied and amplified the text of what is now known
as the Book of Mormon as the basis for denying what eye witnesses
have affirmed: that it was another Spaulding manuscript (Manuscript
Found) that Smith drew upon to fabricate the Book of Mormon.
Dr.
Bales is right when he states:
There
are too many points of similarity for them to be without
significance. Thus, the internal evidence, combined with the
testimony of witnesses, as presented in Howe’s book and reproduced
in Shook’s, shows that Spaulding revised the Manuscript Story. The
revision was known as the Manuscript Found, and it became the basis
of the Book of Mormon in at least its historical parts. Also its
religious references furnished in part the germs of the religious
portions of the Book of Mormon.
However,
in ordinary conversation, and in public debate on the Book of Mormon,
it is unnecessary to go into the question of who wrote the Book of
Mormon. The really important issue is whether or not the Book of
Mormon is of divine origin. There are some Mormons who seem to think
that if they can prove that Spaulding’s manuscript had nothing to
do with the Book of Mormon, they have made great progress toward
proving its divine origin. Such, however, is not the case. And one
should show, from an appeal to the Bible and to the Book of Mormon
itself, that the Book of Mormon is not of divine origin.
Let
us not forget that the Manuscript Story itself contains at least
seventy-five similarities to what is now the Book of Mormon and this
is not to be easily explained away.
Finally,
students of Mormonism must, in the last analysis, measure its content
by that of Scripture, and when this is done it will be found that it
does not “speak according to the law and the testimony” (Isaiah
8:20) and it is to be rejected as a counterfeit revelation doubly
condemned by God himself (Galatians 1:8–9).
Joseph
Smith, the author of this “revelation,” was perfectly described
(as was his reward) in the Word of God almost thirty-three hundred
years before he appeared. It would pay the Mormons to remember this
message:
If
there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth
thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass,
whereof he spake unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods,”
which thou hast not known, “and let us serve them;” thou shalt
not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of
dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye
shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his
commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave
unto him.
And
that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death;
because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which
brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the
house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy
God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from
the midst of thee.
If
thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul,
entice thee secretly, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,”
which thou has not known, thou, nor thy fathers; namely, of the gods
of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off
from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of
the earth:
Thou
shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine
eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal
him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
And
thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought
to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage (Deuteronomy 13:1–10).
The Book of Mormon stands as a challenge to the Bible because it adds to the Word of God and to His one revelation, and the penalty for such action is as sobering as it is awesome:
For
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the plagues that are written in this book:
And
if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book.
He
which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22:18–20).
It
does no good for the Mormon to argue that Revelation 22:18–20 only
pertains to the book of Revelation, since this serves only to prove
our point. In the 1981 edition of the King James Version of the
Bible, published by the Mormon Church, they have no less than
forty-five verses footnoted in the book of Revelation where Joseph
Smith added and took away from the “words of the book.” These
footnotes are conveniently noted as JST (Joseph Smith Translation),
beginning at Revelation 1:1 and ending at 19:21. He truly did what
the apostle John warned against. Smith both added to and took away
from the book of Revelation.
We
need not make this a personal issue with the Mormons, but a
historical and theological issue, which, for all the politeness and
tact demonstrably possible, cannot conceal the depth of our
disagreement. Even the famous “witnesses” to the veracity of the
Book of Mormon are impugned by their own history. This does not speak
well for the characters of those concerned or for their reliability
as witnesses.
It
was Joseph Smith who declared theological war on Christianity when he
ascribed to God the statement that branded all Christian sects as
“all wrong,” their creeds as “abominations,” and all
Christians as “corrupt having a form of godliness, but they deny
the power thereof” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19).
The
onus of hostility rests upon the Mormons, and their history of
persecution (largely the result of their mouthing of Smith’s
abusive accusations and their practice of polygamy) may be properly
laid at their own doorstep. They were the initial antagonists, not
the Christian church. We do not excuse those who persecuted the early
Mormons, but in a great many instances those who were involved were
provoked to action by Mormon excesses. (Note: An example of this
would be the Mormon expulsion from Jackson County, Missouri.)
We
may safely leave the Book of Mormon to the judgment of history and
Mormon theology to the pronouncements of God’s immutable Word. But
we must speak the truth about these things and keep foremost in our
minds the fact that the sincerity of the Mormons in their faith is no
justification for withholding just criticism of that faith or of its
refuted source, the Book of Mormon and the “revelations” of
Joseph Smith. The truth must be spoken in love, but it must be
spoken.
Corrections,
Contradictions, and Errors
There
is a great wealth of information concerning the material contained in
the Book of Mormon and the various plagiarisms, anachronisms, false
prophecies, and other unfortunate practices connected with it. At
best we can give but a condensation of that which has been most
thoroughly documented.
Since
the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the first edition has
undergone extensive “correction” in order to present it in its
current form. Some of these “corrections” should be noted.
The
former major revision of the Book of Mormon was in 1920. That
standard edition is still found in many public libraries and in
millions of homes. In the latest revision, 1981, a subtitle was added
to the cover: “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” and no less
than 100 verses were changed without consulting the missing golden
plates. A note closing the introduction to the 1981 edition says,
“Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past
editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections
that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with
prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the prophet
Joseph Smith.” Without blushing, the Mormon Church boldly asserts
the unfounded claim that the prepublication manuscripts agree with
their most recent changes. Our access to the handwritten copies of
the original Book of Mormon deny such a claim and proves once again
that the Mormon Church will sacrifice truth for the sake of public
relations.
1.
In Mosiah 21:28, it is declared that “King Mosiah had a gift from
God”; but in the original edition of the book, the name of the king
was Benjamin—an oversight that thoughtful Mormon scribes corrected.
This is not, of course, a typographical error, as there is little
resemblance between the names Benjamin and Mosiah; rather, it appears
that either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph
made a mistake when he translated it. But the Mormons will admit to
neither, so they are stuck, so to speak, with the contradiction.
2.
When compared with the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 19:16–20 reveals more
than twenty changes in the “inspired Book of Mormon,” words
having been dropped, spelling corrected, and words and phraseology
added and turned about. This is a strange way to treat an inspired
revelation from God.
3.
In Alma 28:14–29:11, more than eighteen changes may be counted from
the original edition. On page 303, the phrase, “Yea, decree unto
them that decrees which are unalterable,” was dropped in later
editions, but strangely reappeared in 1981. (See Alma 29:4.)
4.
On page 25 of the 1830 edition, the Book of Mormon declares:
“And
the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal
Father.”
Yet
in 1 Nephi 11:21, the later editions of the book read:
“And
the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the son of
the eternal Father.”
5.
The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the
original edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their
dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God.
“Behold,
the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”
Noting
this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his
considerate editors changed 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21,
32; 13:40), so that it now reads: “Behold, the virgin whom thou
seest, is the mother of the Son of God.”
From
the above, which are only a handful of examples from the
approximately 4,000 word changes to be found in the Book of Mormon,
the reader can readily see that it in no sense can be accepted as the
Word of God. The Scripture says, “The word of the Lord endureth for
ever” (1 Peter 1:25); and our Savior declared, “Sanctify them
through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
The
record of the Scriptures rings true. The Book of Mormon, on the other
hand, is patently false in far too many instances to be considered
coincidence.
Added
to the evidence of various revisions, the Book of Mormon also
contains plagiarisms from the King James Bible, anachronisms, false
prophecies, and errors of fact that cannot be dismissed. Some of
these bear repetition, though they are well known to students of
Mormonism.
The
testimony of the three witnesses, which appear at the front of the
Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris)
declares that “An angel of God came down from heaven, and he
brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates,
and the engraving thereon. ”
It
is quite noteworthy that Martin Harris denied that he had actually
seen the plates with his “naked eyes.” In fact, when pressed, he
stated, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye” (Recollections of
John H. Gilbert, 1892, Typescript, BYU, 5–6).
The
Mormons are loath to admit that all three of these witnesses later
apostatized from the Mormon faith and were described in most
unflattering terms (“counterfeiters, thieves, [and] liars”) by
their Mormon contemporaries (cf. Senate Document 189, February 15,
1841, 6–9).
A
careful check of early Mormon literature also reveals that Joseph
Smith wrote prophecies and articles against the character of the
witnesses of the Book of Mormon, which in itself renders their
testimony suspect (cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 3:12; 10:7; History of
the Church; 3:228, 3:232).
Mormons
try to cover this historical predicament by saying that two of the
three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were rebaptized
into Mormonism. What they fail to reveal is more significant: The
Times and Seasons (2:482) published that Oliver Cowdery denied his
Book of Mormon testimony. He spent several years as a baptized
Methodist before his rebaptism into Mormonism. Martin Harris,
likewise, has suspicious circumstances surrounding his rebaptism. He
denied the teachings of Brigham Young after rebaptism and was banned
from preaching by Young because of their differences. David Whitmer
changed the details of his testimony concerning the angel with the
golden plates to say that it was a vision and not an actual
visitation by an angelic person (An Address to All Believers in
Christ, p. 32). Certainly testimony from such unstable personalities
is dubious at best.
The
Holy Spirit in Mormonism
Having
discussed the nature and attributes of God in contrast to Mormon
mythology and its pantheon of polygamous deities, it remains for us
to understand what the Mormon teaching concerning the third person of
the Christian Trinity is, since they deign to describe Him as “a
personage of spirit.”
It
is interesting to observe that in their desire to emulate orthodoxy
where possible, the Mormons describe the Holy Ghost in the following
terms:
“The term Holy Ghost and its common synonyms, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, or simply Spirit, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth occur in the Scriptures with plainly different meanings, referring in some cases to the person of God the Holy Ghost, and in other instances to the power and authority of this great personage, or to the agency through which He ministers. The Holy Ghost undoubtedly possesses personal powers and affections; these attributes exist in Him in perfection. Thus, He teaches and guides, testifies of the Father and the Son, reproves for sin, speaks, commands, and commissions. These are not figurative expressions but plain statements of the attributes and characteristics of the Holy Ghost” (The Articles of Faith, 115).
It is interesting to recall that according to Talmage, writer of The Articles of Faith,
“It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an ‘immaterial’ being, under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits ” (42–43).
Here
exists a contradiction in Mormon theology if ever there was one.
Talmage declares that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit,
obviously “an immaterial being” and obviously God (cf. Doctrine
and Covenants, 20:28), and yet not possessing a form of material
nature; hence, not limited to extension and space, and therefore
rendering it possible for Him to occupy at one time more than one
space of such limits, in direct contradiction to Talmage’s earlier
statements in the same volume. For the Mormon, “a thing without
parts has no whole and an immaterial body cannot exist” (Articles
of Faith, 48), and yet the Holy Spirit is a “personage of Spirit,”
one of the Mormon gods, according to Doctrine and Covenants. To cap
it all, “He is an immaterial being possessed of a spiritual form
and definite proportions!” Mormon theology here appears to have
really become confused at the roots, so to speak; but Talmage does
not agree with Talmage, nor does Doctrine and Covenants; they are
forced into the illogical position of affirming the materiality of
God in one instance, and denying that materiality in the next
instance where the Holy Spirit is concerned.
Parley
P. Pratt, the eminent Mormon theologian, further complicated the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Mormon theology when he wrote:
“This leads to the investigation of that substance called the Holy Spirit or Light of Christ. There is a divine substance, fluid or essence, called Spirit, widely diffused among these eternal elements. This divine element, or Spirit, is immediate, active or controlling agent in all holy miraculous powers. The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances and the one least understood or even recognized by the less informed among mankind is that substance called the Holy Spirit” (Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 24–25, 64).
In
the thinking of Pratt, then, the Holy Spirit is a substance, a fluid,
and a person, but this is not the teaching of Scripture, which
consistently portrays God the Holy Spirit, third person of the
Trinity, as an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Being,
sharing all the attributes of Deity, and one with the Father and the
Son in unity of substance. Mormons are, to say the least, divided in
their theology on the issue, although Talmage bravely attempts to
synthesize the mass of conflicting information and “revelations”
found within the writings of Smith and Young and the other early
Mormon writers. Try as he will, however, Talmage cannot explain the
Mormon confusion on the subject, as evidenced by the following facts.
In Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 the following statement appears:
“All
those who humble themselves and truly manifest by their works that
they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of
their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”
Joseph
Smith the prophet was the recipient of this alleged revelation and he
is to be believed at all costs; yet the same Joseph Smith translated
the Book of Mormon, which unreservedly declared:
“Yea,
blessed are they who shall be baptized, for they shall receive a
remission of their sins. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the
fulfilling of the commandments unto the remission of sins” (3 Nephi
12:2; Moroni 8:11).
In
one instance, Smith taught that baptism follows the initial
act—remission of sins—and in the second instance, the initial
act—remission of sins—reverses its position and follows baptism.
According to Talmage, “God grants the gift of the Holy Ghost unto
the obedient; and the bestowal of this gift follows faith,
repentance, and baptism by water. The apostles of old promised the
ministration of the Holy Ghost unto those only who had received
baptism by water for the remission of sins” (The Articles of Faith,
163).
The
question naturally arises: When, then, is the Holy Spirit bestowed?
Or indeed, can He be bestowed in Mormon theology when it is not
determined whether the remission of sins precedes baptism or follows
it? Here again, confusion on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is
evidenced in Mormon thinking.
It
would be possible to explore further the Mormon doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, especially the interesting chapter in President Charles
Penrose’s book Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, 1888), in which he
refers to the Holy Spirit as “it” more than twenty times—devoid
of personality, although, in the usual polytheistic Mormon scheme,
endowed with Deity. Penrose closes his comment by stating:
“As baptism is the birth of water, so confirmation is the birth or baptism of the Spirit. Both are necessary to entrance into the Kingdom of God. The possessor of the Holy Ghost is infinitely rich; those who receive it can lose it, and are of all men the poorest. But there are various degrees of its possession. Many who obtain it walk but measurably in its light. But there are few who live by its whisperings, and approach by its mediumship into close communion with heavenly beings of the highest order. To them its light grows brighter every day” (pp. 18–19).
Mormonism, then, for all its complexities and want of conformity to the revelation of God’s Word, indeed contradicts the Word of God repeatedly, teaching in place of the God of pure spiritual substance (John 4:24) a flesh-and-bone Deity and a pantheon of gods in infinite stages of progression. For Mormons, God is restricted to a narrow, rationalistic, and materialistic mold. He cannot be incomprehensible, though Scripture indicates that in many ways He most certainly is. “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9). Mormon theology complicates and confounds the simple declarations of Scripture in order to support the polytheistic pantheon of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It is obvious, therefore, that the God of the Bible and the “god” of the Mormons, the “Adam-god” of Brigham Young and the flesh-and-bone deity of Joseph Smith are not one and the same; by their nature all monotheistic and theistic religions stand in opposition to Mormon polytheism. Christianity in particular repudiates as false and deceptive the multiplicity of Mormon efforts to masquerade as “ministers of righteousness” (2 Corinthians 11:15).
The
Mormon Doctrine of God
It
will be conceded by most informed students of Christianity that one
cannot deny the existence of the one true God of Scripture and at the
same time lay claim to being a Christian. The New Testament writers,
as well as our Lord himself, taught that there was but one God, and
all church theologians from the earliest days of church history have
affirmed that Christianity is monotheistic in the strictest sense of
the term. Indeed it was this fact that so radically differentiated it
and the parental Judaism from the pagan, polytheistic societies of
Rome and Greece. The Bible is particularly adamant in its declaration
that God recognizes the existence of no other “deities.” In fact,
on a number of occasions the Lord summed up His uniqueness in the
following revelation:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else (Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 21–22, emphasis added).
Throughout
the Old Testament, God is known by many titles. He is Elohim,
Jehovah, Adonai, El Gebor, and He is also spoken of by combinations
of names, such as Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah-Sabaoth, etc. If the Hebrew
Old Testament tells us anything, it is the fact that there is but one
God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy
6:4). And Jewish monotheism, as all know, at length gave birth to
Christian monotheism, the one developing from the other by
progressive revelation from God the Holy Spirit. It is not necessary
to belabor the point; it is common knowledge that the facts as they
have been stated are true. But as we approach our study of the Mormon
concept of God, a subtle yet radical change takes place in the usage
of the vocabulary of Scripture as we shall see.
It
must also be admitted at the outset that the Bible does designate
certain individuals as “gods,” such as Satan who is described by
Christ as “the prince of this world” and elsewhere in Scripture
as “the god of this world.” It must be clearly understood,
however, that whenever this term is assigned to individuals, to
spirit personalities, and the like, metaphorical and contextual usage
must be carefully analyzed so that a clear picture emerges. For
instance, the Lord declared to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god
to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus
7:1). The Hebrew indicates here, when cross-referenced with Exodus
4:16 (“And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall
be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to
him instead of God.”), that a definite relationship was involved.
The context also reveals that Moses, by virtue of the power invested
in him by God, became in the eyes of Pharaoh “a god.” Aaron in
turn became a prophet of the “god” (Moses) that Pharaoh beheld
because he was the spokesman for Moses. So metaphorical usage is
obviously intended, from the very usage of the language and its
contextual analysis. On this point all Old Testament scholars are
agreed. But this should never cloud the issue that there is only one
true and living God as the previous quotations readily attest.
Another
instance of similar usage is the application of the term “Elohim,”
the plural usage of the term often translated God in the Old
Testament. In some contexts the judges of Israel are referred to as
“gods,” not that they themselves possessed the intrinsic nature
of Deity but that they became in the eyes of the people as gods, or
more literally, “mighty ones” (Psalm 82, cf. John 10:34),
representing as they did the Lord of Hosts. In the New Testament
usage, the apostle Paul is quite explicit when he declares that in
the world, i.e., as far as the world is concerned, “(there be gods
many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father,
and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5–6), a statement
emphasized by our Lord when He stated, “I am the first and the
last: I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for
evermore” (Revelation 1:17–18). We conclude, then, that
polytheism is totally foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition of
theology. In fact, it is the antithesis of the extreme monotheism
portrayed in Judaism and Christianity. The God of the Old Testament
and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same
Person; this the Christian church has always held. In addition to
this, God’s nature has always been declared to be that of pure
spirit. Our Lord declared that “God is spirit, and they that
worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24—as
correctly translated from the original Greek text). In numerous other
places within the pages of the inspired Word of God, the Holy Spirit
has been pleased to reveal God’s spiritual nature and “oneness.”
The apostle Paul reminds us that “a mediator is not a mediator of
one, but God is one” (Galatians 3:20). The psalmist reminds us of
His unchangeable nature, “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art
God” (Psalm 90:2); and Moses records in the initial act of creation
that “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”
(Genesis 1:2). The “gods” mentioned in Scripture, then, are never
gods by either identity or nature; they are “gods” by human
creation or acclamation as we have seen. This, then, is a far cry
from comparison with the one true and living God described by the
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews as “the Father of spirits”
(Hebrews 12:9; see also Galatians 4:8–9).
The
Mormons misuse John 10:34, “Ye are gods,” falsely implying that
Jesus endorsed godhood for man. This cannot be true for several
reasons. It does not fit the context of John 10:24–36, where Jesus
shows his equality with the Father and deservedly is called God. In
contrast, the judges (so-called gods) in Psalm 82:6 were so called
because of their lofty position over the people, but God rebuked them
for their sins, and they were proven to be not gods after all but
fallen, sinful men.
How
this passage is to support the Mormon position is baffling, because
Mormons say they are gods in embryo and they have not yet reached
godhood. Whatever they wish John 10:34 to say, it does not support
their position. The Mormon can only say he hopes to become a god.
Psalm 82 and John 10:34 are in the present tense, a distinction apart
from their position.
In
fact, upon a reading of Psalm 82, it is a wonder that Mormons would
want to identify with the Psalm at all. It says nothing good about
these men. But if that is the position they desire, only the judgment
of God follows.
Furthermore,
the Mormon should be made aware that LDS Apostle James Talmage
correctly identified the “gods” of Psalm 82 and John 10:34 when
he wrote, “Divinely Appointed Judges Called ‘gods.’ In Psalm
82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called ‘gods.’ To
this Scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in
Solomon’s Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the
representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title ‘gods.’
” (Jesus the Christ, 501).
Plagiarisms—The
King James Version
A
careful examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that it contains
thousands of words from the King James Bible. In fact, verbatim
quotations, some of considerable length, have caused the Mormons no
end of embarrassment for many years.
The
comparisons of Moroni 10 with 1 Corinthians 12:1–11; 2 Nephi 14
with Isaiah 4; and 2 Nephi 12 with Isaiah 2 reveal that Joseph Smith
made free use of his Bible to supplement the alleged revelation of
the golden plates. The book of Mosiah, chapter 14, in the Book of
Mormon, is a reproduction of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah the
prophet, and 3 Nephi 13 copies Matthew 6 almost word-for-word.
There
are other instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible
including paraphrases of certain verses. One of these verses (1 John
5:7) is reproduced in 3 Nephi 11:27. The only difficulty with the
paraphrase here is that the text is considered by scholars to be an
interpolation missing from all the major manuscripts of the New
Testament, but present in the King James Bible, from which Smith
paraphrased it not knowing the difference.
Another
example of this type of error is found in 3 Nephi 11:33–34, and is
almost a direct quotation from Mark 16:16, a passage regarded by many
New Testament Greek scholars as one of three possible endings to that
gospel. But Joseph Smith was not aware of this, so he even copied in
translational variations, another proof that neither he nor the
alleged golden plates were inspired of God.
Two
further instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible that have
backfired on the Mormons are worth noting.
In
the third chapter of the book of Acts, Peter’s classic sermon at
Pentecost paraphrases Deuteronomy 18:15–19. While in the process of
writing 3 Nephi, Joseph Smith puts Peter’s paraphrase in the mouth
of Christ when the Savior was allegedly preaching to the Nephites.
The prophet overlooked the fact that at the time that Christ was
allegedly preaching His sermon, the sermon itself had not yet been
preached by Peter.
In
addition to this, 3 Nephi makes Christ out to be a liar, when in
20:23 Christ attributes Peter’s words to Moses as a direct
quotation, when, as we have pointed out, Peter paraphrased the
quotation from Moses (Acts 3:22–23); and the wording is quite
different. But Joseph did not check far enough, hence this glaring
error.
Secondly,
the Book of Mormon follows the error of the King James translation
that renders Isaiah 4:5, “For upon all the glory shall be a
defense” (see 2 Nephi 14:5).
Modern
translations of Isaiah point out that it should read “For over all
the glory there will be a canopy,” not a defense. The Hebrew word
does not mean defense but a protective curtain or canopy. Smith, of
course, did not know this, nor did the King James translators from
whose work he copied.
There
are quite a number of other places where such errors appear,
including Smith’s insistence in Abraham 1:20 that “Pharaoh
signifies king by royal blood,” when in reality the dictionary
defines the meaning of the term Pharaoh as “a great house or
palace.”
The
Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders Isaiah 5:25, “And
their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets,”
correctly rendering the Hebrew as “refuse,” not as “torn.”
The King James Bible renders the passage “And their carcasses were
torn in the midst of the streets.” The Book of Mormon (2 Nephi
15:25) repeats the King James’ text word-for-word, including the
error of mistranslating , removing any claim that the Book of Mormon
is to be taken seriously as reliable material.
Scientific
Evidence Against the Book of Mormon
In
an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon,
the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon
prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant
weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book.
Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be
brought to bear. Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great
Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition), and it is
worthwhile to examine it:
I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.”
According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith’s translation of the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to him. The difficulty with Smith’s statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and the origins of Mormonism extant. Upon learning of Smith’s claim concerning Professor Anthon, Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia. Professor Anthon’s letter reproduced here from Howe’s own collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.
New
York, N.Y.
Feb. 17, 1834
Mr. E. D. Howe
Painsville,
Ohio
Dear Sir:
I
received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time
in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the
Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is
perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain and apparently simplehearted
farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now
deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the
farmer would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been
unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon
came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When
I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the writing he gave
me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A
“gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened
together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been
dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with
the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles
were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his
two eyes would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely,
the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth
of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the
spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to
understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined
at the time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and
spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a
curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed
from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked
through one of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book,
and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from
behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside. Not a word,
however, was said about the plates having been deciphered “by the
gift of God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large
pair of spectacles. The farmer added that he had been requested to
contribute a sum of money toward the publication of the “golden
book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce
an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had
been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and
handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the
plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to
come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the
meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been
given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no
translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the
spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the
paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the
learned, I began to regard it as a part of a scheme to cheat the
farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning
him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing,
which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave
carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular
scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in
columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had
before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and
Hebrew letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or
placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the
whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle, divided into various
compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied
after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a
way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus
particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have
frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the
Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper
contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time
after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him
the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined
purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for
examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was
strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been
in my opinion practiced upon him, and asked him what had become of
the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the
large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and
have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come
upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue
the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the
trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied
that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur
every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from
the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.
I
have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting
the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to
publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned
again by these wretched fanatics.
Yours
respectfully,
Charles Anthon, LL.D.
Columbia
University
Professor Anthon’s letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith’s and Harris’ veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were “Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic” when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were “reformed Egyptian,” the language of the Nephites. Since the language of the Book of Mormon was known to “none other people,” how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith’s translation? To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as “reformed Egyptian”; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.
The
Truth About the god of the Mormons
In
sharp contrast to the revelations of Scripture are the “revelations”
of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the succeeding Mormon “prophets.”
So that the reader will have no difficulty understanding what the
true Mormon position is concerning the nature of God, the following
quotations derived from popular Mormon sources will convey what the
Mormons mean when they speak of “God.”
1.
“In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the
Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world
and people it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).
2.
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man
”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).
3.
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s:
the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones,
but is a personage of Spirit ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).
4.
“Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with
them” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:238).
5.
“As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Prophet
Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the
Ages, 105–106).
6.
“Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being
in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious
immortal body of flesh and bones ” (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the
Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 23).
7.
“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the
beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the
heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).
8.
“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child,
and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of
progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and
overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123).
9.
“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that
God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a
school of earth life similar to that through which we are now
passing. He became God—an exalted being—through obedience to the
same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to
obey” (Hunter, op. cit., 104).
10.
“Christ was the God, the Father of all things. Behold, I am Jesus
Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14,
Book of Mormon).
11.
“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it
with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.
He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the
Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and
spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we
have to do” (Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses, 1:50).
12.
Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful
Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young
stated: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day
Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them,
and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and
God.
“ ‘Well,’
says one, ‘Why was Adam called Adam?’ He was the first man on the
earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren
brought it into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who
are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an
earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I
received my crown and exaltation’ ”(Deseret News, June 18, 1873,
308).
It
would be quite possible to continue quoting sources from many volumes
and other official Mormon publications, but the fact is well
established. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints, which disagrees with the Utah church on the subject of
polytheism, steadfastly maintains that Joseph Smith Jr. never taught
or practiced either polygamy or polytheism, but the following direct
quotation from Smith, relative to the plurality of gods and the
doctrine that Mormon males may attain to godhood, vexes the
Reorganized Church no end. But, it is fact, nonetheless.
The
following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the
Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613–614)
four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King
Follett, and only two months after Smith’s assassination in
Carthage, Illinois.
Tenth
LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith notes that the King Follett
sermon was given at the April conference of the Church in 1844 and
was heard by around 20,000 people. The argument that Smith was
misquoted is discounted by the fact that it was recorded by four
scribes, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and
Thomas Bullock. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith’s
two-hour-and-fifteen-minute message “may be one of the Prophet’s
greatest sermons because of its doctrinal teachings.”
It
is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for
more than three and a half years. Apparently their ancestors did not
disagree with Smith’s theology, as they themselves do today. Nor
did they deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught polytheism,
as does the Reorganized Church today. But the facts must speak for
themselves. Here are the above mentioned quotes:
I
want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. What sort of a
being was God in the beginning?
First,
God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto
one of yourselves if you were to see him today, you would see him in
all the person, image and very form as a man.
I
am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that
God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to
some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to
know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with
him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us
all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did what did
Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon) Jesus said, as the Father hath
power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what
the Father did, that answer is obvious. Here then is eternal life, to
know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods
yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have
done before you—namely, by going from a small degree to another,
from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are
able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting
power.
Mormon
theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is
inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are
in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, “Elohim” being
the god of this planet (Brigham’s teaching that Adam is our
heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but
they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected,
glorified man). In addition to this, the “inspired” utterances of
Joseph Smith reveal that he began as a Unitarian, progressed to
tritheism, and graduated into full-fledged polytheism, in direct
contradiction to the revelations of the Old and New Testaments as we
have observed. The Mormon doctrine of the trinity is a gross
misrepresentation of the biblical position, though they attempt to
veil their evil doctrine in semi-orthodox terminology. We have
already dealt with this problem, but it bears constant repetition
lest the Mormon terminology go unchallenged.
On
the surface, they appear to be orthodox, but in the light of
unimpeachable Mormon sources, Mormons are clearly evading the issue.
The truth of the matter is that Mormonism has never historically
accepted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; in fact, they deny it
by completely perverting the meaning of the term. The Mormon doctrine
that God the Father is a mere man is the root of their polytheism,
and forces Mormons to deny not only the Trinity of God as revealed in
Scripture, but the immaterial nature of God as pure spirit. Mormons
have gone on record and stated that they accept the doctrine of the
Trinity, but, as we have seen, it is not the Christian Trinity. God
the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones, a fact clearly
taught by our Lord (John 4:24, cf. Luke 24:39). Mormon Apostle James
Talmage describes the church’s teaching, as follows, in his book
The Articles of Faith:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of “body, parts, or passions,” as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation. Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh. Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father” that Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, in the work of creation as set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, Chapter IV (48, 466–467).
In
these revealing statements, Talmage lapses into the error of making
Elohim and Jehovah two separate gods, apparently in complete
ignorance of the fact that Elohim “the greater god” and
Jehovah—Jesus the lesser god, begotten by Elohim—are compounded
in the Hebrew as “Jehovah the Mighty One,” or simply “Jehovah
God” as any concordance of Hebrew usage in the Old Testament
readily reveals (LORD—; God—). This error is akin to that of Mary
Baker Eddy who, in her glossary to Science and Health With Key to the
Scriptures made exactly the same error, she too being in complete
ignorance of the Hebrew language. In this grammatical error,
Christian Science and the Mormons are in unique agreement.
Talmage’s
argument that “to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny
God; for a thing without parts has no whole and an immaterial body
cannot exist” is both logically and theologically an absurdity. To
illustrate this, one needs only to point to the angels whom the
Scriptures describe as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:7),
beings who have immaterial “bodies” of spiritual substances and
yet exist. The Mormons involve themselves further in a hopeless
contradiction when, in their doctrine of the preexistence of the
soul, they are forced to redefine the meaning of soul as used in both
the Old and the New Testaments to teach that the soul is not
immaterial, while the Bible clearly teaches that it is. Our Lord,
upon the cross, spoke the words, “Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Certainly this was immaterial. And Paul,
preparing to depart from this world for the celestial realms,
indicated that his real spiritual self (certainly immaterial, since
his body died) was yearning to depart and to be with Christ, which is
far better (Philippians 1:21–23). The martyr Stephen also committed
his spirit (or immaterial nature) into the hands of the Father,
crying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). And there
are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments that
indicate an “immaterial nature” can exist, provided that form is
of a spiritual substance as is God the Father and the Holy Spirit,
and as was Jesus Christ as the preincarnate Logos (John 1:1, cf. John
1:14). Far from asserting their “belief and allegiance to the true
and living God of Scripture and revelation,” as Talmage represents
Mormonism, Mormons indeed have sworn allegiance to a polytheistic
pantheon of gods, which they are striving to join, there to enjoy a
polygamous eternity of progression toward godhood. One can search the
corridors of pagan mythology and never equal the complex structure
that the Mormons have erected and masked under the terminology and
misnomer of orthodox Christianity. That the Mormons reject the
historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no student of the movement
can deny, for after quoting the Nicene Creed and early church
theology on the trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares:
“It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here. The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God’s person and attributes ”(p. 48).
After
carefully perusing hundreds of volumes on Mormon theology and scores
of pamphlets dealing with this subject, the author can quite candidly
state that never has he seen such misappropriation of terminology,
disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic principles
demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced
in the attempts of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the
same time undermine the foundations of historic Christianity. The
intricacies of their complex system of polytheism causes the careful
researcher to ponder again and again the ethical standard that these
Mormon writers practice and the blatant attempts to rewrite history,
biblical theology, and the laws of scriptural interpretation that
they might support the theologies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Without fear of contradiction, I am certain that Mormonism cannot
stand investigation and wants no part of it unless the results can be
controlled under the guise of “broad-mindedness” and
“tolerance.”
On
one occasion, when the Mormon doctrine of God was under discussion
with a young woman leaning in the direction of Mormon conversion, I
offered in the presence of witnesses to retract this chapter and one
previous effort (Mormonism, Zondervan Publishing House, 1958) if the
Mormon elders advising this young lady would put in writing that they
and their church rejected polytheism for monotheism in the tradition
of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was a bona fide offer; the same
offer has been made from hundreds of platforms to tens of thousands
of people over a twenty-year period. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is well aware of the offer. To the unwary, however,
they imply that they are monotheists, to the informed they defend
their polytheism, and like the veritable chameleon they change color
to accommodate the surface upon which they find themselves.
G.
B. Arbaugh, in his classic volume Revelation in Mormonism (1932), has
documented in exhaustive detail the progress of Mormon theology from
Unitarianism to polytheism. His research has been invaluable and
available to interested scholars for over sixty years, with the full
knowledge of the Mormon Church. In fact, the Mormons are
significantly on the defensive where the peculiar origins of the
“sacred writings” are involved or when verifiable evidence exists
that reveals their polytheistic perversions of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. It is extremely difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology
when they are so obviously deceptive in their presentation of data,
so adamant in their condemnation of all religions in favor of the
“restored gospel” allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph
Smith. We must not, however, confuse the theology with the person as
is too often the case, for while hostility toward the former is
scriptural, it is never so with the latter.
Continuing
with our study, Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared:
“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state” (p. 37).
In
this terse sentence, Pratt summed up the whole hierarchy of Mormon
polytheism, and quotations previously adduced from a reputable Mormon
source support Pratt’s summation beyond reasonable doubt. The
Mormon teaching that God was seen “face to face” in the Old
Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9–11; Isaiah 6:1, 5;
Genesis 5:24, etc.) is refuted on two counts, that of language and
the science of comparative textual analysis (hermeneutics).
From
the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the
Mormons to prove “that God has a physical body that could be
observed” melt away in the light of God’s expressed declaration,
“Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and
live” (Exodus 33:20).
Exodus
33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered “intimate,” and in
no sense is it opposed to verse 20. Similar expressions are utilized
in Deuteronomy 5:4, while in Genesis 32:30 it is the Angel of the
Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled
with theophanies (literally, God-appearances), instances where God
spoke or revealed himself in angelic manifestations, and it is
accepted by all Old Testament scholars almost without qualification
that anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to God) are
the logical explanation of many of the encounters of God with man. To
argue, as the Mormons do, that such occurrences indicate that God has
a body of flesh and bone, as “prophet” Smith taught, is on the
face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force
polytheism on a rigidly monotheistic religion. Progressing beyond
this, another cardinal Mormon point of argument is the fact that
because expressions such as “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of
the Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” “nostrils,” “mouth,”
etc., are used, all tend to show that God possesses a physical form.
However, they have overlooked one important factor. This factor is
that of literary metaphor, extremely common in Old Testament usage.
If the Mormons are to be consistent in their interpretation, they
should find great difficulty in the Psalm where God is spoken of as
“covering with his feathers,” and man “trusting under his
wings.” If God has eyes, ears, arms, hands, nostrils, mouth, etc.,
why then does He not have feathers and wings? The Mormons have never
given a satisfactory answer to this, because it is obvious that the
anthropomorphic and metaphorical usage of terms relative to God are
literary devices to convey His concern for and association with man.
In like manner, metaphors such as feathers and wings indicate His
tender concern for the protection of those who “dwell in the secret
place of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the Almighty.”
The Mormons would do well to comb the Old Testament and the New
Testament for the numerous metaphorical usages readily available for
observation. In doing so, they would have to admit, if they are at
all logically consistent, that Jesus was not a door (John 10:9), a
shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a
loaf of bread (John 6:51), and other metaphorical expressions any
more than “our God is a consuming fire” means that Jehovah should
be construed as a blast furnace or a volcanic cone.
The
Mormons themselves are apparently unsure of the intricacies of their
own polytheistic structure, as revealed in the previously cited
references from Joseph Smith, who made Christ both the Father and the
Son in one instance, and further on indicated that there was a
mystery connected with it and that only the Son could reveal how He
was both the Father and the Son. Later, to compound the difficulty,
Smith separated them completely into “separate personages,”
eventually populating the entire universe with his polytheistic and
polygamous deities. If one peruses carefully the books of Abraham and
Moses as contained in the Pearl of Great Price (allegedly
“translated” by Smith), as well as sections of Ether in the Book
of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Discourses of Brigham Young,
the entire Mormon dogma of the preexistence of the soul, the
polygamous nature of the gods, the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer,
and the hierarchy of heaven (telestial, terrestrial, and
celestial—corresponding to the basement, fiftieth floor, and
observation tower of the Empire State Building, respectively), and
the doctrines of universal salvation, millennium, resurrection,
judgment, and final punishment, will unfold in a panorama climaxing
in a polygamous paradise of eternal duration. Such is the Mormon
doctrine of God, or, more properly, of the gods, which rivals
anything pagan mythology ever produced.