Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?


#1

This thread is a spin-off from The Many Gods of Mormonism.

Mormonism has four books of “Scriptures:” The KJV (only!), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The KJV was rewritten by Joseph Smith Jun. to correct its “errors and omissions.” The “corrected” KJV is available in LDS (Latter Day Saints) bookstores.

Quote: **The period covered by the Book of Mormon annals extends from B.C. 600 to A.D. 421. In or about the latter year, Moroni, the last of the Nephite historians, sealed the sacred record, and hid it up unto the Lord, to be brought forth in the latter days, as predicted by the voice of God through his ancient prophets. In A.D. 1827, this same Moroni, then a resurrected personage, delivered the plates to Joseph Smith. [text continues] **

…]

The ancient record, thus brought forth from the earth, as the voice of a people speaking from the dust, and translated into modern speech by the gift and power of God as attested to by Divine affirmation, was first published in the world in the year 1830 as the Book of Mormon. End quote.

But it wasn’t “translated into modern speech.” “Reformed Egyptian” in which the golden plates were allegedly inscribed (a language unknown to scholars), was translated into the Elizabethan English of the 17th century. In fact, it is an imitation of Elizabethan English in all the content that wasn’t directly copied verbatim or paraphrased from the KJV. Hmmmm.

“And it came to pass” occurs no fewer than eight times on one page, selected at random. “Behold” seems to be God’s favorite word.

These golden plates upon which the BOM was allegedly recorded were taken to heaven for safekeeping before they could be examined. Smith advised that if anyone so much as peeked at the golden plates – kept in a box and covered with a cloth – that God would immediately strike them dead. The plates remained in Smith’s possession and under his control until the angel took them away.

Any arguments to be made either for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?


#2

Yes, the book of mormon is a fraud.


#3

Short answer…yes… a total fraud…

Take a look at: Joseph Smiths lifestyle… by their fruits they shall be known…same with the “prophet” the (honorable) elijah mohammed… :smiley:


#4

[quote=Katholikos]Any arguments to be made either for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?
[/quote]

Dozens,

I would try to get a hold of the Smithsonians statement regarding the Book of Mormon, and the Bible. Basically, the statement on the BOM goes through a couple pages of why Smithsonian scientists discount the BOM as being credible historically, scientifically, and geographically. However, their statement on the Bible notes that the Bible is one of the best history’s of the ancient world available.

In addition, Mormons themselves cannot even produce a map of where the events of the BOM occured and where the cities of millions of people were located. I have seen a few attempts but they are always found lacking and someone disproves them quite quickly.

Brandon


#5

The Book of Mormon is a fictional work by Joseph Smith. It purports to be a history of pre-Columbian America, but archæological evidence for it is absent. It is full of anachronisms, such as horses and gold coins in America before the arrival of the Europeans.

irr.org/mit/bomarch1.html


#6

Katholikos,

Tell us something we don’t know. Of course the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the D & C are frauds.

Keep preaching the Truth, man


#7

Ummmm, Yes! The BOM is a FRAUD!


#8

The Bible, of course, is historically acurate. Stone blocks recently excavated from underneath Jerusalem have been found with the inscription “built during the reign of Knig David.” The stones have been dated to approximately 1000 BC. Exactly the time you would expect them to be dated from.

No historical evidence supports the historical claims of Joe Smith. None!

Yet I went to Portland (OR) a few weeks back for a convention, and what do you suppose I found in the drawer of my nightstand in my hotel room? Right on top of the Bible was a Book of Mormon!!!:whacky:

It is very strange–the history in the Book of Mormon is completly without independent historical support, and the theology reads like somthing from L. Ron Hubbord, but so many Mormons apparently, cannot distinguish between the merits of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. And secular hotel owners apparently cannot tell the difference either. (Or maybe the owner of the hotel was a Mormon–who knows)

The interesting thing on this thread would be for Mormons to chime in and share evidence that supports the historical postulates of the Book of Mormon. I look forward to reading that.

May the peace of Christ be with you all in your honest search for Truth.


#9

The Mormon scholars I’ve read can not even come up with any evidence for proof of the Book of Mormon. Their best answer, “It’s a plausability.” :rolleyes: All their answers seem like a different way for saying “I don’t know.”

About the hotel… Did you perhaps stay at the Marriot or one of their affiliates? The Marriot hotel chain is is owened by the Marriot family, a well known Mormon name.


#10

Here’s something that’s been proved only recently:

I’m not sure which book(s) this comes from, but it is a Mormon belief that ancient Israelites migrated to North America. In order to explain why they aren’t still around, the Mormons claim that they interbred with ancient Native Americans and that the Native Americans alive today are actually from that mixed lineage. Well, DNA testing has finally been completed. What did they find? Absolutely no genetic markers in common between Native Americans and Israelite lineages. Of course, this is just one more nail in the Mormon coffin.


#11

There is a great deal of responses available from LDS to all the “problems” I have ever seen for the BOM. The DNA issue seems to even be waning in its popularity as an anti-apologetic. It is true that the DNA issue has increased the prevalence (among the general LDS population) of the frequently held scholarly view that the BOM people came to an already populated region. However, contrary to what Dr. Colossus suggested, DNA has in no way proven that small groups of settlers traveled from the Old World and wrote the BOM. DNA simply is unable to do this. Not only does the current DNA evidence not prove that modern Indians did not genetically descend from Lehi, mathematical models have shown that 20% of the DNA from a population typically vanishes during 600 years of generations (and these models neglect the genocide spoken of in the BOM).

To my knowledge the Mormon’s who post here are essentially, me. With this in mind, if you really want to know what Mormon evidences are I can give you some sites to go to.

This is a pretty good compellation:

[/font]http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

And of course as I mentioned most of the criticisms have been answered.

I posted this on another thread here:

Here are a few evidences associated with Old World geography:

[list]
*]Existence of Bountiful area. For many years it was popular (and it really still is) to say that there was not place like Bountiful in the old world. No place with trees and food and proper currents to prepare for and start a sea voyage in the Arabian dessert. In Joseph Smith’s time and really in our time common understanding is that the Arabian dessert is among the most desolate places in the world. But, Bountiful does exist. There are trees and greenery. There are mineral deposits. There are proper currents. It is unlikely Joseph Smith would have postulated a green place in the Arabian dessert.
*]Continuously flowing river. It is curious that the flowing of the river was mentioned perhaps. Many places have water flowing immediately following rain, but it was generally not thought that any river always flowed. This river flows through the above Bountiful place. This river still flows continually today, and erosions and dessert shifting suggest it may have flowed more strongly in the past (not particularly important, but it is quite possible that continued pumping of the underground reservoir will one day stop this flow). This is not something likely to be included by a 19th century con man.
*]The place of Nahom. The BOM records that Lehi’s band changed direction at Nahom. Also that they buried Ishmael their. Nahom was an ancient burial ground, an ancient inscription reading NHM (no vowels in Hebrew) was found at this location, and it lines up with a turn on the trail from Jerusalem that would end up at the above reference Bountiful. This is a lot for Joseph to correctly include in his deception.
*]The Frankincense trail is associated with much of the above journey, and was an ancient route taken by peoples. Less than 25% of the documentation associated with this trail existed in English in 1830, but there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had access to anything but the Bible and perhaps a daily newspaper.
[/list]The above things are documented in a book called Lehi in the Wilderness: 81 New Documented Evidences that The Book of Mormon is a True History.


Charity, TOm


#12

The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi arrived in the Americas around 600 B.C.? Yet there are absolutely no genetic markers amongst the Native populations of both North and South America, although both the BoM and the D&C claim that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Natives. So, what do Mormon scientists say? That it neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. Okay, so, so far, there is no concrete evidence of a genetic marker to a 2500 year old ancestry.

Have you ever heard of the Lemba peoples of of the Bantu lands of southern Africa? Theirs is an oral tradition passed down from generation to generation that claim they are descended from Jews who escaped the Babylonian distruction of Jerusalem at the same time the BoM says that Lehi escaped. Same time-frame, yet this group of people still possess the Jewish priestly genetic marker.

haruth.com/JewsLemba.html
scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/february/gene.htm
pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html


#13

tom,
this is not intended to be derogatory so please don’t take it that way (although i am not considering conversion to mormonism and have the evidence needed for my faith). my question is, why then do most secular scholars view the bible as accurate history while i have never seen or heard of one (who is not mormon) who says the book of mormon is historical. in fact, i have only ever heard that it is not historical. how do you account for this?


#14

I guess Joseph Smith was unable to foresee DNA testing. What I would like to see is any ancient document in “reformed Egyptian”.


#15

Well, we know it’s a fraud, but I understand that it is not even original. That is, Joseph Smith cribbed an unpublished sci-fi manuscript. Has anyone else heard this? Also, what about the secret goggles required to read the tablets? Where are they. The whole thing is so fantastic!

The Legislature of Illinois recently apologized to the Mormons for chasing them out of Illinois. Everyone is apologizing these days…

Chris C.


#16

TOm,

Coins, if used, always leave a trace. Since coins are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, why don’t we find any coins at all dating from pre-Columbian America?

Article from Mormonism Research Ministry on this problem:
mrm.org/multimedia/text/ancient-coins.html


#17

Whenever I think of creepy white people, I think of mormons. With all of the evidence against them, i’m surprised they are still around. You have to give Joe Smith credit for starting up a long lasting cult.


#18

IS THE BOOK OF MORMON A FRAUD?

Mormonism has four books of “Scriptures:” The KJV (only!), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. The KJV was rewritten by Joseph Smith Jun. to correct its “errors and omissions.” The “corrected” KJV is available in LDS (Latter Day Saints) bookstores.

The answer to this thread’s question - to include the other books listed - is an unqualified YES. They are all frauds. End of discussion.

Next question: Was Joe Smith an prophet or a peep stone seer (read fraud)?
Or: Does a prophet need a peep stone to prophesy?


#19

It is interesting that many of the replies to the question of this thread is: yes, the Book of Mormon is a fraud. But is it really? Just saying so does not make the book fraudulent.

One member of this forum claimed that just looking at Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was enough to prove that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. How does his alleged lifestyle prove that the book is fraudulent? What part of his lifestyle proves this? Also, if a lifestyle proves anything, we may need to throw out considerable portions of the Bible. Moses was a murderer. He murdered an Egyptian man. How could God reveal anything to a murderer, so that Moses could write something inspired? Therefore, we must reject the first five books of the Bible. King David was also a murderer when he sent Bathsheba’s husband to the front lines, knowing quite well that he would be killed, just so David could steal his wife. David was also a polygamist. Such a lifestyle would clearly cause us to reject any of David’s writings. King Solomon is perhaps the most polygamist man in the history of the world. This would clearly give us cause to reject his writings, no matter how much wisdom he possessed. Peter denied Christ three times. This makes Peter a liar. Doesn’t this force us to reject his writings in the Bible? If not, then how can we reject the Book of Mormon by looking at Smith’s lifestyle, especially since he never claimed to have written the Book of Mormon and also, the original manuscript is not even in his handwriting?

Secondly, I want to respond to the post on coins in the Book of Mormon. This is false. The Book of Mormon does not mention coins of any kind. Rather, the Book of Mormon mentions different weights of gold and silver used like money is used. But if we found an ounce of gold or silver in Central America, would we be able to tell if is had monetary value for an ancient people or not? Since the Book of Mormon does not mention anything about coins, any small ball of gold or silver could easily be argued to be a monetary item from the Book of Mormon.

As for “reformed Egyptian”, any alphabet derived from ancient Egyptian could easily be called “reformed Egyptian”. The Roman (or Latin) alphabet we use for the English language was derived from Egyptian. Perhaps, not directly, but it still was. Will you notice that in the Book of Mormon, the word “reformed” in the phrase “reformed Egyptian” is not capitalized? This is because the phrase “reformed Egyptian” is not the label for that writing. Rather, it describes what the Nephites did to the Egyptian alphabet to write Hebrew words with that alphabet. The Nephites used a form of the Egyptian alphabet to write out the Hebrew words that they spoke. The same is true when Russian words, which use the Cyrillic alphabet, are tranliterated into English. We have Russian words spelled with English letters, which words are not actual English words at all. Doing this would give us a “reformed English”.

But before you try to show me how the Mormon religion and doctrines are wrong, I must tell you that I am not Mormon. But I still believe that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record revealed by God through one of His servants, Joseph Smith.


#20

[quote=bengal_fan]tom,
this is not intended to be derogatory so please don’t take it that way (although i am not considering conversion to mormonism and have the evidence needed for my faith). my question is, why then do most secular scholars view the bible as accurate history while i have never seen or heard of one (who is not mormon) who says the book of mormon is historical. in fact, i have only ever heard that it is not historical. how do you account for this?
[/quote]

I have posted in the past that the BOM came forth differently than did the Bible.

The Odyssey has valid historical links, but this does not make Zeus God. The Odyssey can be used to determine what a culture thought at a time. It can be used to understand various characteristics of Troy.

The BOM is unlikely to be used by scholars as a historical document because it does not date to antiquity in the same way that the Bible and the Odyssey do. The fact that there is not place from which to reference the New World archeology is also a problem for utilizing it for scholarly purposes. As it turns out the Old World archeology could have been used to help scholars, but this type of reliance is unlikely due to the need to acknowledge miracles in order to use the BOM.

BTW, the Smithsonian no longer makes an elaborate statement about the BOM.

Charity, TOm


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.