Credibility Issues For The Book of Mormon

Many books are currently available which discuss at length those areas of Mormon history, doctrine and teaching which continue to prevent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints from taking its place among churches who have traditionally represented the fundamental truths and beliefs which have characterized historic Christian faith. This article addresses more specifically the issues relating to the Book of Mormon itself and the claim that it is a document of Scripture, equal in authority with the Bible.

For religious and secular communities to affirm the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, external and internal issues which consistently erode its credibility must be successfully resolved in a manner which satisfies the long-standing requirements of both secular and religious scholarship. Those issues include matters of credibility respecting a) its manner of revelation and translation, b) subsequent emendations by the church to the "inspired" account, c) the impossibility of direct access to its primary source material for independent review and study, d) the theological problem of its underlying premise - the reform of Christianity, e) the credibility of its eleven witnesses, f) its discrete existence apart from the main body of revelatory activity occurring contemporaneously in Palestine, g) the problems associated with its supposed original source language, h) the lack of correlation between the events and places of the book and the known histories and archaeology of the New World, i) the appearance of numerous literal excerpts from the Authorized Version of the Bible, j) the incorporation of scribal and textual errors indigenous to the Authorized Version, k) the relationship of the book to New Testament accounts and l) the relationship of the book to the Bible in general.

Each of these issues are discussed in the following sections.

Reliability Issues In General

Sections:
1. Revelation and Transmission
2. Subsequent Emendations to the 'Inspired' Text
3. The Problem of Direct Access to Primary Source Material
4. The Book's Underlying Purpose - the Reform of Christianity
5. Credibility Respecting Its Witnesses of Record
6. Revelation Apart from Contemporary Revelatory Activity in Palestine
7. Problems Respecting Original Source Languages
8. The History of the Book and the Archaeology of the New World
9. The Appearance of Texts and Usage from the Authorized Version of 1611
10. Relationship to New Testament Accounts
11. Relationship to the Bible in General
12. Conclusion



Reliability Issues In General

While secular institutions of research and learning routinely ignore the religious import of the Bible and its central message, there is general recognition of the Bible's reliability as a witness of ancient customs, times, personages and places. Augmenting this affirmation are the facts of its transmission throughout the ages with such a small degree of error that modern editions of the Hebrew and Greek can be said to faithfully represent the virtual image of the original autographs.

Reliability as an ancient witness cannot, however, be stated in good conscience for the Book of Mormon. While not impressive to the LDS, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. has long since made public its opinion of this work by stating that it has "never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide." In response, the LDS has criticized this indictment by stating that the Smithsonian is not a specialized institute and lacks the expertise to properly assess Mormon scripture or the history it proposes.

It must, however, be properly noted that the LDS does not possess the required expertise either. Unless there is something leading archaeologists do not know, there exists no team of Mormon researchers in the field who have the rank and reputation of those who continue to provide valuable information to the Smithsonian - namely Michael Coe, a recognized authority on pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas. Of even greater significance is the fact that Mormon archaeologists formerly respected by the LDS have themselves gone on record to state that Book of Mormon Archaeology, as a science, is not possible, given the present state of the evidence. Furthermore, the amount of expertise required of a layperson to make rather obvious assessments of historical claims is not as demanding as is being claimed (see also Archaeology and the New World, below).

Regarding the "revelation" of the Book of Mormon, two observations are of interest when compared to the established paradigm of the Bible:

The Book of Mormon purports to have been written on plates of gold and other semi-precious metals. The writing of ancient documents on plates of metal is not without precedent, even in Judaism, (the famous Copper Scroll from Qumran, being an example). However, none were ever used for the original writing or transmission of inspired books. That ancient Israel and subsequently Judaism traditionally utilized various forms of vellum and parchment from the skins of animals or scrolls made from papyrus, is made abundantly clear in the Talmud, the recognized authority on their ancient traditions. Not only was papyrus or animal skins made mandatory but there were specific instructions on their preparation, including the type of ink to be used. It seems incumbent on the adherants of Mormonism to explain why the divinely ordained historians of an overtly faithful Jewish people living in the Americas would select a medium so noticeably at odds with their established priestly and scribal traditions.

Also, the source text of the Book of Mormon is alleged to have been written in a language quite foreign to the prophet receiving it. In contrast, the books of the Bible were all, without exception, revealed in the same language as the prophet, priest or evangelist. The words of the autographs, therefore, bore an exact relationship to the words revealed, which means that the literate of those addressed by the revelation could have understood firsthand the autograph itself. Mormonism would do well to offer some explanation for such a radical departure from that remarkably consistent revelatory method which pervaded the progressive inspiration of the entire Bible over its formative history.

In addition, the assertion that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment of a larger work is, again, a significant departure from God's paradigm in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible itself or any associated extra-biblical traditions assert that the books are anything other than the complete representations of the revealed and inspired record. In contrast, the Mormon reader is left to assume that either some of the "inspired" material has been lost to mankind or the original contained both secular and sacred material, either of which is theologically problematic and without precedent in Judeo-Christian tradition.

The Urim and Thummim

The alleged use of the Urim and Thummim presents additional problems of credibility for the Book of Mormon. While it is asserted by Mormons that Joseph Smith used these devices for only a portion of the translation process, a discussion of their use relative to their reference in the Bible is noteworthy.

It is universally agreed that the exact nature and description of the Urim and Thummim is not presented in the Bible although some information can be inferred from extra-biblical traditions associated with Judaism. Some insight can be gained by observing their use in the various biblical accounts.

Joseph Smith's account, corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses, describes them as spectacles, visually employed for the purpose of reading and translating the unknown language of the plates into Smith's own language, English. The difficulty this creates for Smith's account is that their usage is rather consistent in the Bible as a means of decision making. Not a single reference intimates their use as a translation device for conveying large amounts of verbalized information. They are consistently employed to supply "Yes" or "No" answers to simplistic questions whose resolution could not be easily or readily derived from Scripture or prophetic agency¹.

Furthermore, Smith's description of them as "spectacles" attached to a "breastplate" seems contrary to the statements and implications of the Bible. Whatever their physical description, they had to be of such a size as to fit entirely within the pouch formed by the material comprising the leather ephod of the priest². The idea of giant eyeglasses, the single half of which one could see through with both eyes, seems physically incompatible with the known measurements of the ephod.

The best conjecture as to their physical description is that they may have been precious or semi-precious gemstones each with a symbol for Urim on the obverse and Thummim on the reverse. When cast forth, both stones showing Urim was an affirmative answer, both stones showing Thummim, a negative response (mixed signs being an inconclusive response). Precedent for this conjecture seems to be based on the statements of Saul in I Samuel 14:41 as represented in the Septuagint, ". . let it be Urim . . else, let it be Thummim." (text revised by Wellhausen and Driver).

Whether by means of the Urim and Thummim or by means of the "seer stone", it is clear in the accounts of Smith and the early historians that Joseph Smith was given the express words of the translation by supernatural means, having himself no intuitive or intellectual function at all. This, of course, bears heavily on the quality and character of the translated results which are discussed below.

While the text of the Bible has undergone many revisions to its English version and has appeared in many language versions different from the original writings, the Greek and Hebrew texts have been consistently scrutinized by competent scholarship, thereby maintaining as faithful and reliable a witness to the original as is humanly possible. The rejection of spurious and erroneous editions of these manuscripts in an attempt to preserve the wording of the original text has been a noteworthy and fruitful endeavor. Throughout the history of textual criticism, there has never been a case of authorized departure from the derived text of the original in an effort to correct the mis-statements of its original authors. This is however regrettably true of the Book of Mormon.

To counteract this criticism, the LDS has published a statement in A Brief Explanation About the Book of Mormon appearing in the 1981 printing. The statement reads: "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 the pre-publication manuscripts and early editions by the Prophet Joseph Smith."

At first glance, this statement appears to vindicate the church from amending the "inspired" account by suggesting their due diligence in restoring the purity of the original. However, a comparison with the original edition of 1830, finds a number of interesting emendations authorized by the Mormon church to correct errors made by Joseph Smith, himself. Examples include the addition of the phrase "Yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable," in Alma 29:4, missing from the edition of 1830; "King Mosiah" for "King Benjamin" of the 1830 edition in Mosiah 21:28; "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the son of the eternal Father" for ". . even the eternal Father" in the original of 1 Nephi 11:21; "mother of the son of God" for "mother of God" in the original of 1 Nephi 11:18. The importance of these amendments in relation to Mormon doctrine is all too obvious.

Rather conspicuous also, was the apparent need by subsequent generations of Mormon leadership to correct the rather poor grammar of Joseph Smith, which of course countermands the notion of a supernatural translation in which Smith simply read the words seen within the stone. The embarrassing "catch-22" this creates is significant. Either the words written down are the exact words Joseph saw through the stone (in which case, regardless of the poor grammar they attribute to God, no man had the right to alter them) or the words of Joseph's original manuscript are, in reality, his own (in which case the translation was not provided by supernatural means)³.

Amendments to the translations of the original text of the Bible have the benefit of verification against source language manuscripts by any competent linguist in the field. But the basis for any amendments to the one and only translation of the Book of Mormon is non-existent, since the plates which served as its source are no longer available. Defenders of Mormonism will need to explain to an intelligent world how missing phrases and corrections, subsequently added, were even discoverable without the primary source material or the purported special means (only available to Smith) to translate them.

In Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith - History 1:60) and in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith explains that the metal plates which are the source material for the book were delivered up to the angelic messenger and "he has them in his charge until this day. ."⁴ This of course rather neatly precludes any independent investigation which would settle once and for all the question of its authenticity as a genuine text of the ancient past. Without direct access to the plates, the world is left with one man's word as to the correctness of the translated results.

It is a matter of record that a graphic facsimile of at least some of the writing of the plates was made at the time of the translation, as is evidenced by the account of the visit to Charles Anthon of Columbia University by Martin Harris. How much was finally copied is ultimately known only to the higher echelons of the LDS. If a complete facsimile exists, it has likewise been scrupulously protected from critical, public analysis along with many other documents now suppressed by the church.

In contrast to the Bible (which had many fascimiles made from each autograph), only one partial facsimile may possibly exist for the text of the plates. As for the Bible, the oldest transcriptions of the virtual words of the biblical autographs are extant in whole or part and are available for independent research and analysis by any who wish to do so.

That these surviving manuscripts adequately represent the originals is evident by the fact that the autographs were openly available to public scrutiny at their inception; and the transmission process, which scrupulously and meticulously preserved their words, is well documented and authenticated to the satisfaction of any critical eye. No one reasonably acquainted with these manuscripts, then or now, has ever seriously questioned the validity of the text as represented by the manuscripts that succeeded the originals. Material from the Dead Sea Scrolls has served to verify the accuracy of the transmission process, providing virtually identical pictures of the OT text some 1000 years earlier than the oldest copies formerly available. Regrettably, these "pictures" of texts common to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon have proven disappointing for the LDS since they reveal readings, for example in Isaiah, more in common with our modern Bible translations and quite different from their parallel usage in the Book of Mormon - a difference due to their having been copied into the Book of Mormon from the Authorized Version of 1611.⁵ (See also, Credibility As to the Appearance of Texts and Usage from the Authorized Version of 1611, below.)

Linguistic analysis of biblical Hebrew from Job (the earliest form of the language) through Moses and subsequently forward to the post-exilic writers demonstrates a morphology of the language in perfect accord with the linguistic development of the language as known to secular scholarship. Analysis of the writing materials, fibre and pollen analysis, chemical examination of the inks employed along with numerous studies of the writing styles and implements used have served to vindicate rather than repudiate the authenticity of the source materials.

That each of the books comprising the Bible were divinely inspired in such a form as to be readily readable to their recipients is a remarkable contrast to the Book of Mormon which would have been quite meaningless to its recipient readers even if its original text had been published.

In Pearl of Great Price, (Joseph Smith - History 1:19), Joseph Smith testifies that upon inquiring of the heavenly messenger which sect of Christianity was correct, he was told, "none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that these professors were all corrupt. ." This, of course, is the logical precedent for establishing the supreme church and ensuring the unequivocal loyalty of its laity. That this entailed serious theological implications, seems somehow to have evaded the prophet and his heavenly messenger.

The church ordained and established by Christ through the apostles and their successors is clearly and profoundly described as his Body. It is an entity over which Christ has supreme headship: "For the husband is head of his wife, even as Christ is head of the church." " . . Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it;" . . . "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourished and cherished it, even as the Lord the church." (Eph 5:23, 25, 29). It seems rather difficult to conclude that Christ has all these many centuries been head of the Church, which has grown increasingly corrupt in spite of His lordship. The only conclusions possible are that He was not head of the church, in fact, or that his headship was of no meaningful import, being nullified so easily by the faithlessness of man.

To be sure, the historic church has a spotted past stained with infidelity, unbelief, violence, and corruption. Yet the church has always been larger and greater than the individual acts of men. It has and always will be the corporate profession, praise and obedience of the faithful of all ages. The Body of Christ has always been the image conveyed to the world by those who reflect his power of salvation in all they say and do.

In the Introduction to the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith states, ". . the Book of Mormon was the most correct book of any book on the earth, . ."⁶ This is therefore considerably more than the seemingly innocuous title "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". It was clearly the purpose of Smith to place the Book of Mormon in a superior position to the Bible, making it the test and rule for the interpretation of all other Scripture. This is also the frequent testimony of Mormon believers. They affirm the use of the Bible - "in so far as it is correctly interpreted." Such an attitude is also evident in the theological writings of the Latter-Day Saints. Predominant use of quotations from the Mormon scriptures with little or no use of biblical texts is a routine feature of publications and dissertations.

The correcting activity of the Holy Spirit in the spiritual life and practices of the people of God in both Old and New Testaments demonstrates the active interest of God to superintend his Church until that time when He finally resolves all human history in his divinely established Kingdom. Not only is this internally evident throughout the Bible but it is evident in the manner by which the text of the Scripture has been diligently transmitted and researched throughout the ages. With this in view, to say that the Book of Mormon exists to further correct the former record of his Word to mankind is tantamount to saying He did a rather poor job the first time around.

Mormons may contend that the corruption of God's Word began during its transmission at the hands of imperfect men and did not affect the inspired originals. Two observations must be offered in response. First, if only the transmission process corrupted the Bible, is there not a similar fate awaiting the Book of Mormon? Will God someday be obliged to correct the Book of Mormon? Secondly, the well-documented process of transmitting the Bible and its amazingly low incidence of error speaks strongly against any such accusation. In other words, the most important aspect of the Bible, its ideological content, has been preserved virtually unimpaired from then until now.

Which leaves Mormonism with only one subject to criticize - the inspired account of the biblical autographs themselves. And this, of course, is theological suicide, since they cannot discard the Bible outright nor can they answer why an all-knowing, all-wise God would spend so much time and effort inspiring a defective word which He knew would eventually need correction?

Regardless of which aspect of the Bible is meant, what is hauntingly amiss in this rationale is the long period of silence from the close of the New Testament and the appearance of the Book of Mormon. This implies a rather uncaring God who would let nearly two millennia transpire before revealing a corrected version. And what is to be said of that host of followers occupying this eighteen hundred years of silence, who all that time unwittingly memorized, studied, taught such an imperfect Word?

Daniel C. Peteron in his article A Scholar Looks at Evidences of the Book of Mormon (F.A.R.M.S, 1995), cites the Dead Sea Scrolls as a precedent for hiding scriptural material for over two millennia. However it must be borne in mind that the DSS, while presenting some unknown works of Hebrew tradition, did not reveal any heretofore unknown books of Scripture. Their chief value was in contributing considerably older copies of known books of the Bible which had long since occupied their established place in the Hebrew canon.

Lastly, but quite important, it was stated by the angelic prophet that all the "creeds" of the Christian church were an "abomination". Such a declaration approaches what many might consider blasphemy when compared with the content of those creeds. Does the prophet mean to include in his indictment the Apostle's Creed, which states, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary; . . the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body; the life everlasting." Or the comforting statements of the Westminster Confession: "The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and Glory, waiting for the full redemption of the body." Are these the words of abomination? Can it be even remotely conceived that the same Christ who is the object of such professions of faith should declare them an "abomination"?

It is, however, quite conceivable that a man who was prejudiced by his unhappy experiences among the denominations in his immediate locale, being also hopelessly ignorant of the true content of their creeds, might place such defamations into the mouth of a supposed messenger of God.

Furthermore, if it was God's intention to reform Christianity through Mormonism, it follows he would necessarily intend that his reform reach out and embrace the remnant of the faithful throughout the world. Otherwise, we must somehow conclude that Smith became suddenly the singularly and only righteous man and those who joined him the only individuals of mankind who were likewise "cleansed". And if the remnant of the faithful were to be called to Mormonism out of the corrupt church, how, precisely, was Smith planning on succeeding to this purpose by effectively alienating that remnant with such declarations as these against the very creeds that defined their faith?

Of primary importance regarding the witnesses to the Book of Mormon is the necessity for two groups in contradiction to the book's internal testimony concerning the restriction to only three persons. In Doctrine and Covenants 5:10-14, the Lord is purported to state, "But this generation shall have my word through you; And in addition to your testimony, the testimony of three of my servants, whom I shall call and ordain, . . . I will give them power that they may behold and view these things as they are; And to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation." Despite this, the Book of Mormon publishes an additional declaration of Eight Witnesses, arranged for by Smith, who testify to having seen and "hefted" the plates.

As for their credibility, Martin Harris, one of the Three, declares in the Testimony of the Three Witnesses that he, along with Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer "have seen the plates which contain this record." Yet when questioned by Charles Anthon of Columbia University as to whether he had actually seen the plates, Harris denied it. He later attempted to reconcile his contradictory testimony by explaining that he had seen the plates only "with the eye of faith."⁷

As to the Eight Witnesses, one cannot help but notice that all but one were relatives of Smith and Whitmer. I suppose a witness is a witness; but one cannot escape the notion that in the presence of so extraordinary an account as that which prompted the beginnings of Mormonism, a less assailable company of witnesses was not sought for. As for Hiram Page, the one man not related by blood to Smith or Whitmer, his subsequent denunciation by Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 28:11 seriously erodes his value as a witness. After all, the value of a witness is the reliability of his character and the confidence men may have in his ability to tell the truth. Being deceived by Satan for the despoiling of the church seriously undermines any confidence that he could represent the unbiased truth without a vested interest in saying otherwise or, at the very least, being similarly deceived. Yet Mormonism persists in distinguishing his indiscretion from his supportive role as a witness.

A final point of logic regarding the three witnesses is the contradiction of facts concerning the re-appearance of the angel with the plates to these men at a time when they were still clearly in the custody of Smith for the work of translation. In Doctrine and Covenants 5:26, the Lord charges Martin Harris that "he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the Power of God;" This revelation is dated March, 1829 and clearly establishes that the three witness had seen the plates at the hand of the angel by this point in time. Strangely, we find the Urim and Thummim still being used by Smith as late as June of the same year (D&C, 17:1). Such contradictory statements prompt us to ask why a revelation by an angel was necessary if the plates were still in Smith's custody? If Smith had the plates, which plates were those shown to the men by the angel?

While not uniquely indemnifying, the contention that God was inspiring revelatory activity in the New World at a time when tremendously significant events and prophecy were unfolding in the Near East demands some explanation and is certainly without precedent anywhere in the history of Judaism. Those accounts which pertained to God's chosen people and deemed worthy of preservation as a heritage of faith and instruction for future generations were rather consistently confined to those areas of the world where corporate Israel lived, whether in freedom or captivity. The events and writings of detached remnants of Jews living apart from those events of the biblical account of God's people have yet to produce a single work which may be regarded by Christianity or Judaism as equal to or inclusive with the accepted canon of Scripture. It may be countered that Daniel and Ezekiel each wrote Scriptural material while being separated as captives in a foreign land. Yet even a general familiarity with the unfolding story of the Bible will adequately explain why the events of their lives, even though separated for a time, were an integral part of that story and why the lives of the 8th century tribes carried off to Assyria were not.

While a unique revelation to a Jewish remnant outside the critical events of Palestine is not impossible, the probability of such a revelation must necessarily encounter the theological significance of what was happening to Judah at the Hand of God. The sack of Jerusalem and the exile of its people were the outward manifestations of God's sovereign punishment of his people. How is it that a remnant of those being so punished should leave Palestine under the auspices of God and arrive in the New World without a single word in any of the inspired accounts that so vividly chronicled these events? If the Book of Mormon is that single word, why was it withheld for centuries from the main body of God's people who have always been the chosen custodians of the divine account of God's people?

If the Meso-american Jews were an unbelieving remnant, how is it that God would countenance as an "additional witness" their escape from his judgment to a world quite apart from his chosen land and utterly isolated from the rest of his people? If the purpose was to show his glory in their eventual salvation, it would seem most poignant to tell that story in those writings which detailed the solemnity of their judgment, namely the biblical texts. If they were a righteous remnant of Judah, again, their escape and journey to such a distant land is without any meaning in the unfolding story of God's people, since it seems their proper place would have been with that righteous remnant characterized by Daniel and his companions, whose purpose was to subsequently return to their land and restore it.

Furthermore, it requires some explanation as to why such a people as those of the Book of Mormon, dispossessed of their homeland and Jewish brethren by some Divine purpose, vanished from the New World, leaving as their only trace the American Indian, whose religious expression was not only wholly different from their supposed heritage, Judaism, but was violently contrary to it.

According to Mormon doctrine, the Lamanites who were the survivors of the Nephite-Lamanite wars, were the progenitors of certain Indian tribes of Central and North America. If God did, in fact, purpose all of these events in order to do a special work in the Americas, how is it that the ethnic and religious life of these Indians has devolved to such a state of dissimilarity and contradiction to the principles and beliefs of their supposed forefathers? Complicating this is the notably dark skin of these supposed Lamanite descendants (which to Mormons is a sign of being cursed). The faith and culture of the Nephites and Lamanites has ultimately come to naught, demonstrated by the all too late missionary endeavor to redeem their only surviving remnant.

The Problem of Genetic Histories in the North and Central American Indian

Mormonism has yet to adequately explain the criticism that the supposed descendants of the people of the Book of Mormon, specific tribes and groups of Central and North America, are wholly unrelated genotypically and phenotypically with their supposed Mormon ancestors and reveal an overwhelming Mongoloid factor in their blood histories.

Attempts to diffuse the import of a dominant mongoloid factor need considerably more than the rather slight evidence of more recent research which discloses that there are, in fact, scant traces of European and Near-eastern factors in their blood. Rather, one must consider that a people who owe their ancestry to a race of people (the Jews), whose phenotypic and genotypic characteristics have been so visibly dominant in every race with whom they have been mixed, would have more than mere trace factors in their blood.

Those of Jewish ancestry in virtually any nation (including the Chinese) are unmistakable. To counter this, one would have to establish an exceptionally strong dilution factor with some other, subsequent, race of people. But who else, after all, was here? If the scant native bands of non-Jaredite-Nephite-Lamanite people are candidates, would it not seem that given a genetic potency strong enough to dilute away any physical trace of Semitic ancestry, these modern Indian descendants would have more in common with that contaminating native stock than with the Jewish, Mormonite people themselves?

In Mormon 9:32 the writer states that the language of his record is "reformed Egyptian". Rather contradictorily, it is also stated in Pearl of Great Price Joseph Smith - History 1:64 that the characters transcribed from the plates and sent to Charles Anthon were described as "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian and Arabic." Why the Jewish Nephites would have chosen languages which were surely all abominations to them and would never have been sanctioned by the priesthood remains a question without an answer.

A technical discussion of these languages and their interrelationship within the source text is, of course, completely out of the question, since Mormons claim that the plates have long since been returned to divine custody. A discussion of the possibility of "reformed Egyptian", however, is worth comment.

Research into the history of the Egyptian, now quite exhaustively known to modern scholarship, reveals no reference to any morphology of the language which includes a period or form called "reformed Egyptian". This is quite adequately documented in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work Major Problems of Mormonism, previously referenced.

An explanation by Daniel Peteron that reformed Egyptian is a term applied to a Hebrew text written in Egyptian characters not only fails to resolve the primary issue at hand but introduces additional problems which further frustrate a resolution of the subject.⁸ In an example cited by Peteron, the Guide of the Perplexed by medieval rabbi, Moses Maimonides (which uses a supposed reformed language), Hebrew letters are used to transliterate the Arabic. This supposedly gives Peteron warrant for calling a similar example, that of romanized Chinese, reformed Chinese (since Chinese sounds are written in Roman characters instead of logographs).

But even Peteron fails to employ this convention in the very example he cites and of which he claims to be an expert. When referring to the Maimonides text, he states that it is "something called Judeo-Arabic", not, as would be expected, reformed Arabic. If we choose to simply ignore Peteron's theory about the word "reformed" and follow his own demonstrated practice (the first word of the name identifies the language in which the characters are written, hence Judeo-Arabic), shouldn't the case of writing Chinese in Roman characters be called Romanized Chinese, which of course is what it is called.

Incidentally, the two Chinese romanization systems, which write the sounds of the actual Chinese words in Roman letters, are the Yale and the Wade-Giles romanizations. Never in the history of their usage has either been called reformed Chinese.

Either way, we are still without justification for calling such texts "reformed".

Furthermore, returning to Peteron's theory of calling transliterated languages reformed, the term reformed Egyptian would seem to imply an Egyptian text written in the characters of another language which is just the reverse of what is purported for the Book of Mormon. The absence of any instance in which the transliteration of one language into another is formally called reformed causes one to ask if this is a term Peteron has coined on the fly in order to defend this regrettable statement in Mormon 9:32.

The term reformed in the study of language is usually applied to those cases whereby a language has undergone significant internal modification and embraces such aspects as pronunciation, spellings, verb forms and the influence of borrowed vocabulary from proximal languages.

Should another defender try the tack of identifying reformed Egyptian with one of the forms of historic Egyptian, it should be pointed out that the known periods of the Egyptian are the Old, Middle, Late, Demotic and Coptic. It is possible that someone might attempt to link reformed Egyptian with the Late period of the language, since it was introduced by the reformer-king Ikhnaton. One must bear in mind that Late Egyptian was primarily an attempt to bring the spoken language into formal print. This, however, lasted only through the relatively short reign of the pharaoh and never officially caught on, leaving Old and Middle Egyptian as the unchallenged language of writing.⁹

A note about the Jews and their literary practices:

The traditional practices of the Jews regarding the writing and copying of religious texts is unparalleled, involving the preservation of the actual count and exact positions of Hebrew characters on a line. A rather fundamental point at issue is why a Jewish remnant would choose to transliterate their texts, a process which would certainly signal the end of that tradition, especially at a time when their counterparts in Palestine where still contributing valuable works in Hebrew to the canon of Scripture.

Archaeology can often prove as important a mode of discovery as the record of the ancient historian. It can often provide the only remaining physical evidence to vindicate or repudiate the theories and facts comprising the history to which it is linked. Thus, the remains of the Hall of Pompey adjacent to his magnificent theatre in Rome lend affirmation and confidence to that account of the life of Julius Caesar which tells of his assassination within its walls.

The nature and extent of the events portrayed in the Book of Mormon mirror in many respects the histories and events of civilizations long since known to comprise the life of the ancient world. With these similarities come equally demanding expectations historically and archaeologically. Furthermore, the period of the Nephite-Lamanite civilization, lasting from 600 B.C. to the beginning of the 5th century A.D., rivals that of Rome from its primitive beginnings as a city state to the fall of the empire. The richness of Roman archaeological finds throughout Europe and Asia is in perfect accord with the extent and duration of her civilization.

Regrettably, research from recognized archaeologists of the ancient Americas virtually all agree that, "nothing, absolutely nothing has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere."¹⁰

While some correlations can be made for places in Book of Mormon accounts in Palestine, Babylonia and Arabia, upwards of forty cities of the new land are mentioned throughout the various books and numerous statements are made describing the extent to which they were developed. Yet not a single monument, inscription, or official document bears even one of their names. Rivers, mountains and other characteristics of their new land are frequently mentioned yet without sufficient information to identify them with their modern counterparts. Descriptions of animals with no fossil evidence or independent accounts of having been in the New World during the period create a puzzling dilemma that has not been resolved.

If one were only reasonably familiar with the reports from archaeological research in the region, one would certainly notice such findings as the discovery of ancient foundations beneath the remains of later buildings, which is typical of succeeding eras, or unsucceeded finds whose ancient character are outside the time line of known cultures. Even if adequate research had not been done to identify the more remote remains, at least something would exist to aid the theory that someone else lived here before the Pre-Columbians.

John Sorenson in an article defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon cites a few artifacts from Meso-america which offer independent, non-Mormon testimony of an Asian people "coming by sea . . in vessels of wood"¹¹ . . . . "from where the sun rises, descendants of Israel . ."¹² While these references are helpful as independent legend, significantly more is needed.

The evidence required to substantiate that a sizable population lived here would have to be a bit more plentiful than the available accounts of small bands of folk who visited here, albeit from Asia or the Near East. Quotations from Father Sahagun and from the ancient Guatemalan document cited above are helpful in verifying the assertion that the people in the Book of Mormon might have arrived here from the Middle East and become the ancestors of the Meso-americans What will, however, prevent these references from devolving to mere mythological statements is the discovery of substantial evidence that the people mentioned in them actually established a thorough-going civilization here.

To say, as does Sorensen, that adequate research has simply not been done on most of this material is the same as saying that there simply isn't enough evidence to validate the Book of Mormon archaeologically; and after all, the scientific community is trained to draw its conclusions from the available evidence.

Even Mormon scientists have gone on record as to the impossibility of Book of Mormon archaeology. Dee F. Green, formerly of BYU has stated "If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. . . . No Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. . . . Twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed."¹³

Thomas S. Ferguson came to similar conclusions in a paper which responded to statements made by Mormon apologists John Sorensen and Garth Norman: ". . it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book of Mormon geographical place . . . I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book of Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong."¹⁴ These men, and others who in trying to prove the Book of Mormon became convinced otherwise, have of course been defamed by the LDS.

The point is not that one or two items may hint or indicate that the initial accounts of the Book of Mormon could have happened but that so much is missing which would help to establish the events following their arrival, events which occupied over a millennia of time.

While awaiting discoveries which will confirm the Book of Mormon, the world must question how the histories of the Pre-Incan peoples, the Chavinese, the Moche, and even the early history of the Mayas, replete with monumental witnesses, overlapping the same time period as the Mormon record, can ever be seriously reconciled with the history and events of the Nephites and Lamanites.

The autographs of the Bible, from first to last, demonstrate the rather consistent principle of having been composed individually and personally in the language and form commonly used in the immediate locale of the prophet or writer or that common to the nation at the time of the writing. Thus, we meet the New Testament in the common language of the world of its writers (Koine), as opposed to its sister dialect (the Attic), reserved so scrupulously for the classics and the formal literature Greece.

Similarly, translations of the Bible into English consistently bear the marks of that form of English common to the translator at the time each edition was formulated and published. Thus we encounter that wide range of English which begins with the archaic English of William Tyndale (1525) or the now out-dated wording of the King James Version (1611) to those editions of the late twentieth century, the RSV, NASB and NIV. Each represented the text of the Bible in the language of its day. (The American Standard Version 1901 being one of only a very few editions to depart from this tradition, preserving much of the style and wording of the King James text in a day when usage was virtually as modern as it is today).

The paradigm which emerges from this relentlessly consonant pattern substantiates the fact that God consistently chose to reveal his Word in that language which was common to his hearers both in the inspired language of choice and in his superintendence of the translations which followed.

Strangely, we meet the Book of Mormon in the linguistic style of the King James Bible of 1611. If Mormons insist on a divinely inspired translation, this represents a rather significant departure from the paradigm above. It requires cogent explanation as to why God would inspire the translation of a text by supernatural means, which takes the form of the English language several centuries out of vogue with its intended audience. This is all too painfully obvious. Besides being the only Bible available to prophet Smith, the style employed grossly over-mimicks that of the King James in a manner quite unlike the real thing. The overuse of "yea" and the employment of "behold" and "it came to pass" in practically every other sentence of some passages are examples (Alma 9:11-13, 28:10-13).

Significant also is the appearance of several thousand words matching the exact reading of the Authorized Version of 1611, including verse and chapter divisions which would not be developed for centuries. Once again, one wonders how this was directed by divine inspiration, since the biblical texts which support these passages make no requirements for versification nor do they make linguistic demands that their translation take a particular English style, as is evident in the many English versions derivable from the same manuscript witness.

The Incorporation of Scribal and Textual Errors Indigenous to the Authorized Version

Perhaps the chief embarrassment of all, respecting the text of the Book of Mormon, is the full-fledged incorporation of scribal and textual errors indigenous to the King James Version which have been subsequently identified as spurious or problematic additions occurring during the long and frequent copying process of those texts. (These verses, I John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20, have been identified as not being part of the original text of the New Testament because they first appear only in later manuscripts - some as late as the 16th century - but are completely missing from the oldest and most reliable witnesses).

Examples of Mormon texts using these problematic NT verses are 3 Nephi 11:27, 36, part of which paraphrases I John 5:7, and 2 Nephi 11:33-34 which appear almost identical to Mark 16:16.

One may contend that these verses still appear in printed editions of the most modern translations. The rationale, however, for keeping them or removing them from printed editions is significantly different from the rationale employed in research and study.¹⁵ While modern printings which benefit from the latest research may include the verses, they do so with an obvious footnote of caution. No respected institution of religious study would accept or approve work whose thesis relied on the validity of these verses in the original text.

Another defense of these problematic verses is that their legitimacy is reinstated by their appearance in the Book of Mormon which thereby promotes them to genuine status in the New Testament. However, the requirements necessary to regard these verses as being present in the original text is significantly greater than the testimony of one additional manuscript, especially of questionable authenticity. Assuming, however, that authenticity was no longer an issue, evidence more plentiful than that supplied by the Book of Mormon would be required to sufficiently offset the rather powerful testimony of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus¹⁶ and would be difficult to come by.

The irreconcilability of these features is bound up in the fact that Smith claimed no technical role in the translation of the Book of Mormon. Rather, the translation process was claimed to be as supernatural an event as the inscribing of the plates. The text was viewed line by line by means of the "spectacles"¹⁷ or the "seer stone", leaving Smith the task of simply reciting what he saw by Divine guidance¹⁸ , thus making God the veritable agent of the translation itself, including its errors. This conclusion cannot be seriously countenanced and simply betrays the frailty of purely human endeavor when it is wholly unaided by the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit.

The Book of Mormon contains a rather large section of material in 3 Nephi which deals with the purported appearance of Christ immediately following his crucifixion in Jerusalem. His work among the Nephites during this supposed visitation along with some of his purported statements and instructions to them formulate noticeable departures or additions in contrast to the record of the New Testament.

In 3 Nephi 15:17-19 we read that the Nephites are supposedly the "other sheep" to whom Christ referred in John 10:16. The historic interpretation of this NT passage states that Jesus was referring to the Gentiles, based on his Jewish audience (hence the phrase "not of this fold"), and that the most immediate problem to arise in the days following Pentecost was to be the incorporation of Gentile believers into what had been a wholly Jewish fellowship. Since the Nephites of the Book of Mormon are clearly displaced Jews of whom Christ is purported to be saying ". . ye were separated from among them because of their iniquity;", the conclusion that Nephites of the New World were the "other fold" is, at the very least, a mis-appropriation of the verse in a blatantly privileged sense to the exclusion of the Gentiles and as such constitutes the kind of "private interpretation" forewarned us by Peter. (2 Pe 1:20).

In 3 Nephi 9:20 an interesting phrase appears at the very end of the verse. It states that the Nephites "were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not." One questions how a ministration and gift of the Holy Spirit, so completely overwhelming and efficacious in the lives of the apostles and disciples of the book of Acts, could be received in the lives of the Nephites without their personal knowledge?

Equally mystifying is the similar calling of twelve men from among the Nephites to carry on Christ's ministry in the Americas (3 Nephi 12:1). The most obvious aspect of this account is the absence of any mention of their names. In contrast to our Lord's Judaean ministry in the NT, there is no personal information about these men and their intimate interaction in Jesus' ministry.

Questions arising from logically extending the implications of this calling require some explanation. If these men were to mirror those called in Jerusalem, why, unlike their counterparts in Judea, did their ministries produce no lasting effects? Why, for example, are there no extant writings from these men, no lasting ministry or Christian testimony? Their ministries all ultimately culminate in the war with the Lamanites and their allies. Why would the Lord have commissioned them knowing their end? Especially in light of the assured fruitfulness of all those whom he called in the NT, who endured the War of the Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem and the violent hatred of Rome.

An additional account of the Nephite twelve needs comment. In 3 Nephi 28:4-9, Christ is seen pronouncing a prophetic blessing on three of the twelve men. They "shall never taste of death, but shall live to behold all the doings of the Father. . even until all things shall be fulfilled. . when I shall come in my glory. ."

This, according to Jesus in this account, is based on the similar blessing pertaining to John in the Gospel account (John 21:22).

While John is blessed with the role of "tarrying" until Christ comes", there is no indication in the NT passage of Christ's promise that he would live through the ages and not taste death. Not only is this omission consistent with the historical record of John's actual death but that death serves to mitigate against there being a similarity between what was said of John and what is purported to be said to the Nephites. The NT statement that he should "tarry until I come" is in keeping with all the NT statements about the imminent return of Christ. All such passages throughout the eschatalogical material present the expectation that Christ would return at any time. The fact that his second coming is, in this day and age, still an imminent event does not invalidate the exhortations conveyed then or now. The introduction, however, in the Mormon account of a quasi-eternal life for the three Nephites is a major departure from the ministry of Christ in the NT and his subsequent work in the apostolic ministries that followed.

Of curious note is the appearance of the term "Christian" in Alma 46:15, since Acts clearly states that his followers were first called Christians at Antioch (c. 42 A.D.) and the account in Alma antidates the Crucifixion and the events of Acts by a century at least.¹⁹

Worth mentioning also is the sheer anomaly of the term "Christ" employed by notably Jewish believers. It is well known that the disciples of Jesus, being Jews, referred to him as 'Yeshua Ha-Mashiyach' (Jesus, the Anointed One or Messiah). The name 'Iesu Christos' was employed to express the equivalent in Greek, being the language chosen by the NT writers for the autographs. Since there was no reason which obligated the Nephites to write in Greek, there would have been no requirement to use 'Christos'. The question pivots on the issue of whether the original on the plates uses 'Christos' or 'Mashiyach'. If 'Mashiyach', then it is possible that during the divine translation into English, the Lord could have substituted the word 'Christ', which would have been more meaningful to the people of Smith's day. But without the plates, it is impossible to vindicate them from this anachronistic blunder.

A rather minor point of dissimilarity between the Book of Mormon and the NT accounts is the statement made in 3 Nephi 27:3. Here an admonition is given by Christ in response to the disciples' question about what name should be given to his church. Christ is represented as answering that any church without his name cannot be his church, "how be it my church, save it be called in my name?" This statement must, of course, be weighed in the light of the many churches of the NT which did not bear his name. They were called the church of Ephesus, of Phillipi, of Sardi, etc., and lest one think that the complete names were not given in Acts, it should be pointed out that Christ used the names as they appear in Acts in his exhortations to them in the Revelation. If it be proposed that Christ also used incomplete names, it remains to be demonstrated where the idea of longer names, which are to have included his name, is to be based?

Central to Mormon teaching is the affirmation that the Book of Mormon is a writing of scriptural authority comparable with and superior to the Bible. Such a proclamation is primarily based on the testimony of Joseph Smith and his immediate witnesses and co-founders. That position has been maintained by church leadership even to the present day, largely from a traditional commitment which reverences the pronouncements of the church's first prophet and president and from the fact that the church has often stated that its foundation rests on the vision and experience of Joseph Smith.

The superiority of the Book of Mormon necessarily includes a responsibility to "correct" those aspects of the Bible and other writings which have suffered "corruption". This, of course, covers all objections raised against the Book of Mormon concerning its departure from or re-explanation of statements made in the Bible. If the Book of Mormon is the superior rule that corrects all others, those points where non-Mormon texts differ are simply the areas needing correction or clarification. Augmenting this key doctrinal position is the additional principle that the canon of Scripture is by no means closed and that God is still, even in the present day, adding to his Word.

Yet when one examines how the books and epistles of the Old and New Testament have come to be accepted as authoritative by countless generations of Christians, the Book of Mormon stands out in striking contrast. Since the Book of Mormon purports to be not only another testimony of Jesus Christ but the most correct and faithful of all testimonies, a brief discussion of how divinely ordained writings of scriptural authority were produced and recognized will be helpful in assessing the "authoritative" position of the Book of Mormon and in settling the issue of whether God is, in fact, ordaining new scripture in our present day.

In the early church, the testimony of Acts tells us that the teaching and leadership of the twelve apostles (Matthias having replaced Judas) was immediately received by the company of followers who remained after the Ascension. The primary reason for this acceptance was the value of the apostles' eyewitness testimony of Jesus' work, teaching and ministry among them and their ability to recall h