The Book of Mormon --- is it real?

The history text book that Joseph Smith would have used in school taught that there were no structures built in the Americas before Columbus and that they were all salvages and tribal.

Joseph Smith was laughed at for describing cities, high society, wide-spread use of cement, cities buried underwater, elevated highways, multiple maritime arrivals in the Americas, Hebrew writings, Semitic DNA, and stone boxes. He also identified the first inhabitants of the Americas and identified that they were "large people" that arrived around 2000 BC............exactly how the Olmecs are described. It also contains ancient Jewish names (Like Alma and Lehi) and contains elaborate chaistic poetry.

Every single one of these things has since been found. What are the statistical chances that he would go against so many things that were "known" in his day but would be proven many years after his death.

Word print analysis out of Berkley University (.........not BYU) has determined that it is "statistically indefensible" that Joseph Smith, Solomon Spaulding, or Oliver Cowdery wrote the Book of Mormon.

Additionally it was produced in just 90 days with no access to libraries, universities, or scholars.

Clearly we claim that it was written by ancient prophets and was translated by Joseph Smith. What other reasonable explanation exists? That he wrote it in 90 days and got very lucky (to the tune of 1 in 10 trillion odds)? The world didn't possess the knowledge that would be required to have written such a book in 1830.

Even though we know much about the bible and the lands of the Bible have been continuously occupied and are in an environment ideal for preservation, we have still only located 18% of biblical locations. Do you know what happens to a battlefield in the Jungles of Mexico over 1600 years???

They disappear. There is relatively little funding for mesoamerican archeology. One of the challenges is that every time they excavate something the jungle re-claims it after a short period of time. The largest ruin in Mesoamerica, El Mirador, has hardly been touched.

You pose a lot of "what if's", speculations, and unsubstantiated concerns. I suspect God has a tremendous amount of common sense. It's not unreasonable that the translation provided to Joseph Smith would be consistent with the scriptures that were used in his day.

The Bible lands are dry and arid. The Book of Mormon lands are likely jungle. You can't say that just because we've found something in the Bible lands that we must discover something comparable in the Americas. Additionally, there are 1 billion Christians world-wide that have an interest in Biblical Archeology and they have had so for the past 2000 years. Add the Jews and the Muslims and the number grows. 13 Million Mormons 180 years and it's hardly a fair comparison.

As for the Trinity, about 20% of modern Christians are non-trinitarian. This is hardly a tenant of Christianity. It is a popular belief among Christians but it is not a defining characteristic. It doesn't matter what people believe, what matters, after all, is what is true. Eternal truth is not decided by a democratic voting process.

I commend your interest in studying this topic although it's worth pointing out that you clearly have a very strong bias already. You might be interested in the book by John Lund:

http://www.amazon.com/MesoAmerica-Book-Mormon-John...

It's also worth pointing out that if you scrutinized the Bible in the same fashion that you're scrutinizing the Book of Mormon then there's no way you would believe in it. The Bible mentions dragons, is not always internally consistent, can not be "proven" and has many different translations and not a single original manuscript. I believe in the Bible. I'm simply pointing out your double standard.

It's also worth pointing out that spiritual truths are not discovered through history or archeology. With an open heart and mind, read the Book of Mormon and pray to God to find out if it is true or not. For now, you only have your best guess. Get an answer from God and go from there. Sincerity is the key. You need to be ready and willing to change your life drastically if God answers your prayer and indicates that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was one of his true prophets.

God bless. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss any of this further.

Oliver Cowdery wrote the printer's copy of the Book of Mormon. There is some evidence that he copied from the KJV, where verses were almost identical. It is also possible that the publisher who added the punctuation, cheated by looking at the Bible verses.

Some of that "misuse of personal pronouns" is actually Hebrewisms. We would say "she and I", but in Hebrew, it would be "I and she".

The "rock" is revelation, as explained in the verse before. "Peter" doesn't really translate as "rock", but as "gravel". God governs his church through revelation. The gates of Hell refer to death. Hell, or hades or sheol is the underworld, the place where spirits go when they die. Death will not prevail because of the resurrection. The apostles would die, but death would not prevail. In fact, the apostles did die. Peter, James and John were later resurrected and appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, ordaining them to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Gates of Hell did not prevail.

Many early church writings show evidence of distinctly Mormon doctrines. Premortal existance, a heaven with multiple degrees of glory, Jesus teaching the "spirits in prison", Baptism for the Dead, secret ceremonies, and the deification of man can all be found in the early teachings of the church fathers, and in early Christian documents.

Although we don't know where the final battle took place, there is archeological evidence of great battles that took place in Mesoamerica. The Mayan language has been cracked, and now we can read many of the stellas that permeate Mesoamerica. What do we find? Wars that involved hundreds of thousands of people.

Mormons do believe in the Holy trinity, just not the creed of the Holy Trinity. The creed is an attempt to describe the relationship of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost in philosophic (pagan) terms. It is an abomination. The term used in the scriptures is Godhead, not Trinity. God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost make up the Godhead.

The Mexican stingless honeybee was NOT introduced by the Spanish.

OK, I'll give it a crack...

Q: - The Book of Mormon is based on the King James Version of the Bible, a relatively recent translation. The King James translators added words (italicised) to help the readers, yet in some cases these are preserved in the Book of Mormon."

A: The Book of Mormon (BofM) has no relationship w/ the bible, in the sense that Joseph wasn't referencing it at all. The BofM was transcribed from Golden plates to what is now The Book of Mormon. How things are italicizes, punctuated, etc, really has no barring on it's origin or translation.

Q: - The Book of Mormon has some serious grammatical errors. Including the misuse of personal pronouns in some cases

A: Examples? Also, how is this disproving the BofM?

Q: - The idea that Christianity became corrupted within a few generations...

A: If you read the verse prior: " 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.". So here we're talking about revelation. And in the next verse "...upon this rock I will build my church...", Christ is referring to revelation as the "rock", not a physical rock. Mormons believe this rock was removed (apostles being killed etc), temporarily, but has been restored, thus validating what Christ said later of "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cause, the gates of hell haven't prevailed...

Q: - Early Church writing shows no evidence of Mormon doctrine.

A: Very vague statement... Which doctrine? (Christ is our redeemer, repentance, baptism, etc?). Also, due to the apostasy these truths were lost, thus the necessity for the BofM. So this "statement" actually coincides exactly for why the BofM came about...

Q: - There is no archaeological evidence to indicate a great battle between the Nephites and Lamanites in 421AD. There is archaeological evidence of battles which are described in the Bible, which occurred many centuries before this.

A: It's unknown exactly where this battle took place; only that Moroni had his army camped there (if that), not necessarily that the war happened right at the hill Cumorah. Also, it's been noted by many scientists the decomposition in the north east would all but remove any evidence whatsoever. PS, not finding evidence isn't proof that this battle didn't happen either. Quite honestly there could be evidence of battles, but from which battle and whom?? I'm not going to search that out. Google "Native American war/battle north east", maybe you'll find some stuff...

Q: - Latter Day Saints do not believe in the Holy Trinity, but instead believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist as entirely separate entities. Alma 11:28-31 (from the Book of Mormon) concludes that there is only one God.

A: This doesn't question the validity of the BofM, this is simply our doctrinal belief. Also, the story of the baptism of Christ should be proof enough they are indeed 3 separate and distinct beings...

Q: - The Book of Mormon says that honey bees were introduced to the Americas around 2000BC. They were actually introduced by the Spanish in the 1400s.

A: Not sure it was described that they "introduced" honey bees then, and to say they didn't go extinct, or simply were low in numbers, is plausible. This is weak "proof" otherwise that the BofM isn't valid either.

If someone came to you and said, "I found another bible, you want to read it?" What would you say? This is basically our argument and plea to the world. But many don't wants to read another bible, and will not investigate it (BofM). Please take your pastors "notes" back to him w/ these rebuttals...

- nope. the BoM is a record of another people - similarities to the KJV bible are caused from language knowledge familiarity of translators and similar ancient records (which the BoM peoples brought some with them).

- the BoM is a religious text.....so what if some of the grammer is incorrect. it is the message that has import.

- the bible itself both predicts and chronicles the corruption of God's words..... and this verse does not say that the bible will not be corrupted - what it says is that God has ALWAYS communicated with us thru revelation and He will continue to do so. that not even hell can stand against Christ. that His words and deeds will apply to all.

- I don't know where you got this from, but you may want to recheck that. however, I will grant that with a living prophet and a living God and gospel, it seems logical and expected that doctrinal understanding would expand and grow.

-there is plenty of evidence.....what there is not is proof. dr. john clark compiled a list of 60 items from the BoM (things like horses and swords, and barley) in 1842 only 8 of the 60 were archaeologically confirmed findings - but as of 2005 35/60 have been confirmed with another 10 receiving tentative confirmation. archaeological evidence actually favors the BoM, but one has to be open to see it.

-the trinity is a construct of the nicene councils - not of God. godhead (as mentioned in the bible) is what the LDS believe in......three separate personages united completely in intent and purpose. it makes sense.

-bees --- first we should note that the term "bees" in the BoM occurs in an old world (jaredite) setting, it is never used in connection with the new world......so this argument could simply end right here.

however - some studies do suggest that bees were known in the ancient new world.

warren notes that there “are many references in the Maya region to honey bees in ancient times, and these references occur in ritual contexts, i.e., are of native or pre-Spanish origin."

and other nw scholars have observed that “not only was the domesticated bee in ancient America but that there were gods of bees and beekeepers . . . Honey was considered a real treat for the Indians. Equally important was black wax taken from the hives which was often traded for other commodities." *

The Book of Mormon is only real when you have sincerely read it and prayed about it through the power of the Holy Ghost as well as have obtain a personal testimony.

i watch tv set rarely. you just don't get the same quality. i mean, try making walden into a television show

Truly, there is absolutely no evaluation absolutely....simply because viewing television relies on the gunky creativeness of a Tv set entertainer who's main concerns are budget, ratings and popularity also to Hell with theme integrity, or, for example, anything creative truly.

There are many areas where Mormon "scripture" conflicts with the Bible. There is not enough room to list them all, but I would like to highlight a few.

Mormons teach that there are latter day revelations. The Bible says, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3) Notice "the faith" (or the system of faith, the gospel) "WAS ONCE delivered." This leaves no room for latter day revelations

(The English Standard Version and that the New American Standard version translate this verse, "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." "Once for all" is very clear.)

Mormons teach that an angel gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon. They call it "ANOTHER Testament". The Bible says, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9)

The Book of Mormon teaches that believers were called "Christians" in 73 BC. (Alma 46:15) The Bible says that the disciples were called "Christians first in Antioch". (Acts 11:26) This was about 41 AD.

The Book of Mormon talks about the church, also in Alma 46:15. According to the Book of Mormon this was about 73 BC. About 100 years later though, Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). "Will build" is future tense. This means that the church was yet to be established in the future. (It was established shortly after Christ rose from the dead. (See Acts 2.)

Mormons also call young, unmarried men "Elders". The Bible says an Elder must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6) and have children that believe (1 Timothy 3:4, Titus 1:6).

The book of Mormon teaches Jesus was to be born at Jerusalem (Alma 7:10). The Bible teaches Jesus was born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1)

The Book of Mormon teaches that Melchizedek reigned under his father. (Alma 13:18) The Bible teaches his priesthood was without father. (Hebrews 7:3)

Mormons teach that one person can be baptized for another who has already died. Jesus taught "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved". (Mark 16:16) "He... shall be saved". Not he is baptized and someone else shall be saved. We will each be judged by what we have done, not on the basis of what someone else has done. (2 Cor. 5:10)

The Book of Mormon teaches that at Christ's death, darkness covered the land for three DAYS. (3 Nephi 8:19-23) The Bible says it was three HOURS. (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44)

Mormons teach that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that Joseph Smith translated it into English with the help of God. On the introduction page of the copy I have, there is a statement that "some minor errors" have existed in past editions that were corrected in this publication. If it were God's word and translated with the help of God, then how did it have ANY errors, no matter how "minor"?

Also, if there are or were minor errors, how can the book be trusted to be correct in the major things (things that relate to showing us how to serve God and how to be saved)?

The Bible is the word of God and it is all we need for our doctrine, for reproof, to correct error, and to teach! (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I don't mean for these comments to be harsh, but there are many areas where the Bible does not agree with Mormon doctrine. I have given just a few examples and I have cited verses from the Bible and verses from the Book of Mormon so you can investigate it for yourself.

If the Book of Mormon contains errors, which it does, then it cannot be the Word of God and it must be rejected.

It admits it has had errors in the past. How can we trust we trust it now?

There have been thousands of changes introduced into the Book of Mormon. History proves there have been more than 3,913 changes between the original edition of the Book of Mormon published in 1830 and the ones printed and issued through the mid-1970s. The 1981 edition introduced between one and two hundred additional word changes. Though many of the changes relate to spelling and grammar, some are quite substantial. For example, in Nephi 11:21 the phrase "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the eternal Father" is changed to "Behold the Lamb of God, yea even *the son of the eternal Father*."

Steve Benson, the grandson of the late Mormon leader Ezra Taft Benson, wrote the following in the newspaper article: "Troubling to us was the pathological unwillingness of the Mormon Church to deal forthrightly with its doctrine and history. Our personal study revealed that church canon, history, and scripture had been surreptitiously altered, skewed, rewritten, contradicted, and deleted."

The Mormon account of how Smith went about translating the Book of Mormon disallows any possibility of errors, even relating to misspellings and grammar. The translation process involved Smith using 'sheer stone' through which he would see *one character at a time* and read it aloud to Oliver Cowdery would repeat the character to ensure accuracy, and then that character would disappear and another would appear in its place. *Every letter and word was allegedly given by the power of God*.

Do you really want to base your salvation on a book that has had over 4,000 changes introduced into it since its initial publication?

Mormons may respond that there are scribal errors, typographical errors, and contradictions in the Bible, too. If they argue in this way, make the following points.

1. Citing errors in manuscript copies of the Bible should not be a smokescreen to divert attention away from the fact that the method used for translating the Book of Mormon, using sheer stones, translating one character at a time, does not allow for any errors whatsoever. Skeptics need an explanation for 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon.

2. There are only forty or so significant variants in manuscript copies of the Bible, and none of these affects any doctrine or moral commandment of Christianity. Further, unlike the situation with the Book of Mormon, there are virtually thousands of biblical manuscripts that can be objectively studied and compared by linguistic scholars to ensure accuracy. The Book of Mormon does not have that support.

3. Many thousands of archaeological discoveries by both Christian and non-Christian archaeologists prove the accuracy of the Bible. No such discoveries support the Book of Mormon.

4. As scholars probe into alleged contradictions in the Bible, they consistently see that they are all explainable in a reasonable way. For example, did Jesus die by hanging himself or by having his intestines burst open? See Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18. This looks like a contradiction. In reality, these verses are partial accounts, neither one giving us the full picture. Taken together, we can easily reconstruct how Judas died. He hanged himself, and sometime later the rope loosened and he fell to the rocks below, causing his intestines to gush out. See Ron Rhodes' book 'The Complete Book of Bible Answers' for explanations for many 'alleged' contradictions.

Yes, there really is a book called the Book of Mormon.

What's IN it, however, is not "real" or "true" in any way.

There is no archeological evidence of ANY kind to support ANYTHING mentioned in the book of mormon. In fact, according to the Smithsonian Institution, "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)

Not just honey bees, but wheat, steel, grapes, horses, chariots, and much more are claimed to have been in ancient America by the book of mormon -- and none were here until Europeans brought them over.

Here, this might help:

http://20truths.info/

Peace.

(ex-mormon)