Book of Mormon Origins – If Not Angels Then Who?

Anyone who has expressed doubts regarding the story of the Book of Mormon will probably have been met with the question, “Well if Joseph didn’t get it from the angel how do you explain the Book of Mormon?”

Today the Book of Mormon does seem an unusual book that appears to have sprung from nowhere. Certainly the Mormon Church likes to present it as such, insisting that it could only have the history claimed for it because there is no other credible explanation.

In my last post we looked at the Bible as a major source for the Book of Mormon. Large sections of the Bible are quoted in the Book of Mormon, including over eighteen chapters of Isaiah. Even the Apocrypha is pressed into service, providing names, concepts and story lines. Beyond the Bible there was ample material on which Joseph Smith could draw to build his stories of the Ancient Americas; but could a simple farm boy have produced such a book?

Joseph Smith – Ignorant Farm Boy?

LeGrand Richards, in his book A Marvellous Work and A Wonder, after listing “42 great truths revealed through Joseph Smith,” makes this comment:

“Joseph Smith, or any other man, could not have obtained all this information by reading the Bible or studying all the books that have ever been written. It came from God.” (p.411)

At the beginning of his book LeGrand Richards quotes Jesus’ words about putting new wine into new wineskins (Mark 2:21-22) to explain why God would choose an uneducated lad – so that He could teach the lad the way He wanted, without any traditions or prejudices to get in the way. Joseph is often cast in the role of ignorant farm boy, thoroughly incapable of writing the Book of Mormon.

This picture of an uneducated lad is misleading. Although he had little formal schooling, he was an imaginative and bright child. His imagination led him into divination and treasure seeking in his teens. Further, Joseph Smith’s parents, far from being the poor country hicks often imagined, were downwardly mobile gentry from Vermont, who moved to Palmyra in 1817, and struggled with a mortgage, debts, and poor crops. His father worked the land in the season and, during the winter, was a school teacher, so there was education in the home.

Even so, the only way the question of an “uneducated lad” innocently seeking truth could possibly arise in the first place is if the story is plausible. But there is no evidence to show that a fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith sought God, went into a grove to pray, saw visions, or was led by an angel to the hidden repository of gold plates.

Joseph, in his later telling of the story, relates how he shared his experience with a local Methodist preacher and was treated with contempt and subjected to ‘the most bitter persecution and reviling’ by ‘the great ones of the most popular sects of the day.’  And yet no account has been found of the vision in any records of the time, or for almost twenty years after. This at a time when newspapers, fighting for circulation, reported regularly the lively tales based on folk-lore and superstition that prevailed at the time.

Fawn M. Brodie, who published a biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was one of the first to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the story:

“Joseph’s own description of the first vision was not published until 1842, twenty-two years after the memorable event.

If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph’s home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family. The awesome vision he described in later years may have been the elaboration of some half-remembered dream stimulated by the early revival excitement and reinforced by the rich folklore of visions circulating in his neighborhood. Or it may have been sheer invention, created some time after 1834 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging.”

James B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of History at Brigham Young University, admits that “none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision.” Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830’s, “…the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it.”

This being the case, the Book of Mormon can only be the product of an older, more mature Joseph Smith, whatever its true origins. The “uneducated lad” was yet to discover his destiny at the age of fourteen and knew nothing of angels, dreams, and gold plates.

Back in the Day…

In fact, many of Joseph’s ideas can be traced to the people around him and the speculations of the day:

Official Mormon Church history tells us that Joseph’s father believed in dreams and visions and as early as 1811, when Joseph was only 6, contended for a return to the original church established by Jesus Christ and his apostles. His parents were both, purportedly, independent religious thinkers, his mother believing that all the Christian creeds were wrong – as did many people in that place back in the day.

In fact, in 1809, Alexander Campbell had come out against all Christian creeds and began his own sect (the Disciples of Christ), attempting to return to the early church. Also known as the Campbellites, they were prevalent along that part of the frontier and many later became Mormons because of the similarity in their beliefs.

Even the account of Joseph’s so-called First Vision is remarkably similar to accounts of spectacular conversion stories published in that period. In 1816 Elias Smith, a minister, claimed to have seen “The Lamb once slain” in a vision in the woods. Joseph’s local newspaper published a similar story in October 1823. Alexander Campbell himself wrote in 1824 about a revival in New York during which people had had visions, heard a voice in the woods, or seen the Saviour descending to the tops of the trees.

To people today, the idea of the Urim and Thummim stones, which enabled Joseph to translate the golden plates, is strange, but peep stones were common back in the day. In March 1826 Joseph was charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor.” He admitted in court that he used a peep stone to discover hidden treasures in the earth. He actually had several, including a dark stone he looked at in his hat, and a clear stone he held up to a candle or the sun.

Joseph’s mother testified to the inventive nature of his mind:

“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.” (Quoted in No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie, p.35)

The Book Of Mormon – Couldn’t Have Been Written By A Man?

In view of the above it would seem that Joseph had plenty of material on which to draw for such a book. Added to which, local speculation was rife about a highly civilised race that had been wiped out in a great battle and buried in mounds locally.

A local Congregationalist minister, Ethan Smith, published a book in 1823 called View of the Hebrews; or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America. In it he argues that Native Americans are descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, a view commonly held back in the day. It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Mormon Church asserts that Joseph could not have written such a complete book in the 60 days in which the translation took place. Yet those who acted as his scribes never actually saw him translate. It is known that there was a curtain between them and Joseph, and they never saw the plates as he translated.

They also testify that his translation was fluent and he never corrected. Since even the best linguists sometimes have to rephrase their translation, Joseph must have been directly inspired by God. Another possibility, of course, is that he was reading from a previously prepared manuscript, or even from memory, considering his unique ability to “tell tales” as witnessed to by his mother. And remember almost one third of the Book of Mormon is lifted from the Bible.

It is impossible to consider the origin of the Book of Mormon without considering Joseph Smith and the background against which he lived. The book can be explained by Joseph’s fertile mind, mastery of language, native cunning, and responsiveness to the tittle-tattle, speculations, and opinions around him.

The Book Of Mormon – An Ancient Document?

In 1831 Alexander Campbell wrote concerning the Book of Mormon:

“This prophet Smith…wrote…in his Book of Mormon every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies; -infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry [sic], republican government, and the rights of man” (Millennial Harbinger, Feb.1831, p.93)

Not only does Joseph Smith tackle these great nineteenth century controversies in his Book of Mormon, but uses material from publications not in existence at the time of the Nephites.

There are marked parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Joseph also appears to have drawn from popular books of his day, and even the local newspaper, to create his theological masterpiece.

Even Shakespeare is paraphrased by Lehi, the father of Nephi,  “hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs you must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveller can return” (2 Nephi 1:14). Hamlet, act 3, scene 1, contain the words “from whose bourn no traveller returns…” Famously, the last word in the Book of Jacob is not “Reformed Egyptian” but French, “I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren adieu” (Jacob 7:27)

Not a Shard…

We began with the challenge to account for the Book of Mormon if the official story is questioned. The Book of Mormon is very much a product of its age and fits neatly into the background of the early 19th Century. It is not for us to prove anything, however, but for the Mormon Church to account for the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Mormons argue that they have a prophet and modern revelation, while those who cling to the wreckage of traditional and apostate Christianity have the heavens closed to us – but who has the evidence? Who can “walk Bible lands”, while Mormons pay top dollar to tour guides to take them through non-existent “Book of Mormon lands”, point to Inca and Maya ruins and declare “it might have been something like this”?

Who can walk in the footsteps of Abraham as he travelled from Ur to Haran and Lower Egypt and to Beersheba; or of Israel as they travelled from Egypt, across the wilderness, to the promised land; or of St Paul if they wish, to Seleucia, Lystra, Philippi, Corinth, Athens, Galatia and Rome; or follow in the steps of Jesus himself as he walked the shores of Galilee or the streets of Capernaeum and Jerusalem?

But no one can tell us where Nephi walked, where Mosiah reigned as king, where Alma, son of Alma was judge over his people and high priest over the church, where the wars recorded by Helaman took place and many Lamanites were converted; not even where Jesus walked when he supposedly “walked the Americas”. Joseph Smith could lift his stories from the Bible but the archaeology has stayed stubbornly in Bible lands.

New World archaeology has not turned up a coin, not a pot, not a shard, not a brick, a name, a hill or mountain, a valley or river, not a city, town or village to support Mormon claims for the Book of Mormon. If the places and people didn’t exist then the events cannot have taken place.

It is the Mormon Church that is making great claims for the Book of Mormon and if it can be shown to be false it is for the Mormon Church, and not us, to account for it.

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues at The Mormon Chapbook

Book of Mormon Origins – The Bible, by Mike Thomas

This is the first of a short series we are going through this year on where Joseph Smith may have found some inspiration from in his creation of the Book of Mormon. Many people say how could Smith have simply made it all up? We share the view that he did no such thing, there was a variety of sources involved, chiefly the Bible. We are not claiming to be doing anything really new here, for much more detailed information regarding this please go to Utah Lighthouse Ministry or Mormon Think. This book in particular from UTLM is particularly useful regarding the Bible. However we are going to bring a few points up and are open to some dialogue.

The Synoptics

The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they are noticeably similar in language and content (from the Greek syn, “together with,” and optic, “seeing” – “seeing together”) 91 percent of Mark’s Gospel is found in Matthew, 53 percent of Mark is found in Luke. Perhaps the authors used a common source we don’t now have, or they may have been interdependent, perhaps later Gospels depended on, Mark, the earliest extant Gospel.

This is not controversial, its how historical accounts are written and/or compiled. The Bible is not dictated from heavenly halls to an earthly amanuensis, it is recorded as God deals with men and women in an historical and cultural context. In its transmission it is subject to the usual vagaries of the historian’s/custodian’s method and purpose, but always with a godly oversight that ensures man’s writing reflects God’s mind, purposes and will. This is the true miracle of Judeo/Christian Scripture, it is recorded and transmitted by man yet remains fully God’s written Word.

Mark was a close associate of Peter and is reporting him, the material coming from Peter’s sermons. Matthew leans heavily on Mark despite being an eye-witness of Gospel events, probably because he simply agreed with Mark’s account and found it a good aide-memoir. Luke describes at the start of his account of Jesus and the early church how he set out to investigate “everything from the beginning” and “write an orderly account” (Luke 1:1-4) providing a researcher’s eye-view.

This understanding throws up some interesting clues about the original writing process. For example, parallels can be found between Matthew 9:2-8, Mark 2:3-12 and Luke 5:18-26, the healing of the paralytic. There is verbatim agreement between Matthew 10:22a, Mark 13:13a and Luke 21:17. One interesting outcome is literary fatigue,  which occurs when one writer depending on another sometimes makes errors of omission, continuity, and detail.

An example of this is found in Luke’s account of the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17-26) In his account Mark lays out the story for us in some detail (Mark 2:1-12) but Luke, obviously depending on Mark, forgets to mention, or transfer across, the essential detail that Jesus was in a house, failing to correctly set the narrative. The reader can finally work it out when they get to verse 18 of Luke’s account; “Oh, I see, Jesus was inside a house.” This is a minor glitch and needn’t trouble us, but it demonstrates the mechanics of Gospel writing and transmission.

The Book of Mormon

This understanding is important when considering claims made for the Book of Mormon (BOM) which is meant to be original material translated from the Gold Plates, apart from the acknowledged quotes from the Old Testament. As Joseph Smith builds his picture of the Ancient Americas he is not meant to be depending on pre-existing texts, earlier accounts, or other sources. Certainly, it would make no sense for the BOM to get its material from the New Testament since the BOM describes people who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ.

Yet Alma 18 & 19, some 90 years BC, contain a story remarkably similar to the account of the raising of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. Whereas Lazarus had been dead for three days, in the BOM King Lamoni lay comatose for “two days and two nights” in what seems like a “slain in the Spirit” experience that was popular in the early days of Mormonism.

What is interesting is the confusion in the account of Lamoni. They were about to bury him because they insisted, “he stinketh,” which is what was said of Lazarus in John 11:39. But Lamoni was patently not dead so why should anyone say that he smelled of death? The queen herself detects no such smell. To confuse the issue further the BOM prophet Ammon speaks of Lamoni as though he were dead, assuring the queen “…he shall rise again,” echoing Jesus’ words to Martha in John 11:23.

Elsewhere in the BOM this phrase is used correctly to refer to resurrection from the dead, not to describe waking from a Spirit induced sleep (Alma 32:22; Helaman 14:20). Joseph Smith, using the Gospel of John as a source for this story, seems to have unconsciously copied across phrases that made sense in the original but make no sense in the copy. Thus we begin to see that, when Joseph Smith “translated” the BOM he had an an open Bible before him.

Numerous theories have been considered over the years to explain the origin of the BOM, and in a future post we may look at them, but any explanation must surely start with the Bible, which is quoted extensively, consciously, and unconsciously throughout the text. Indeed, Joseph Smith appears to have mined the Bible, including the apocrypha, for stories, phrases, words, names and ideas for his new “scripture.”

The use of the Bible in the BOM occurs on different levels. The most obvious is when BOM characters quote whole chapters from the Old Testament. In 2 Nephi 11:2 the main character writes, “…now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words,” before going on from chapter 12 to quote Isaiah chapters 2-14. In the index of the BOM there is a list of places where Isaiah and others are quoted and, including the above example, we find:

1 Ne. 20&21/Isa.48&49; 2 Ne.7&8/Isa.50&51; 2 Ne.12-24/Isa.2-14; 2 Ne.27/Isa.29; Mosiah 14/Isa.53; Mosiah 15/parts of Isa.52; 3 Ne.22/Isa.54.

3 Ne.24&25 are chapters from Malachi 3&4 while 3 Ne.12-14 reproduces the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5-7.

Aside from these acknowledged examples there are hundreds of unacknowledged uses of the Bible in the BOM, including one or more quotes from 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Old Testament books used include Genesis, Exodus, Job, Micah, Hosea and Psalms.

Honour, or Affliction?

Joseph Smith also transferred across errors from the King James Bible. 2 Nephi 19 reproduces Isaiah 9, verse 1 of which reads in both:

“Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.” (KJV, BOM)

 

Where the KJV tells that God, “afterward did more grievously afflict her by way of the sea…” modern translations correctly say “made glorious,” or “glorify,” or “honour.” Here are three examples of the correct translation:

 

“But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (ESV)

 

“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress, in the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honour Galilee of the Gentiles, by way of the sea, along the Jordan-” (NIV)

 

“Yet there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish, as in the former time. He degraded the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, so afterwards He will glorify the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (MKJV)

 

Unfortunately, Joseph Smith didn’t have a more accurate, modern translation to draw from and nor, it seems, did his prophetic gift alert him to the problem.

 

Isaiah, or Paul?

 

Another feature of of this process is the anachronistic use of New Testament paraphrases of Old Testament verses. Alma 5:57 is a reference to 2 Corinthians 6:17 which is, in turn, a paraphrase of Isaiah 52:11;

 

“And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things; and behold, their names shall be blotted out, that the names of the wicked shall not be numbered among the names of the righteous, that the word of God may be fulfilled, which saith: The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people; “

 

So is Alma quoting Isaiah, or Paul? We might understand how Alma would have access to the Isaiah text but how has he come to quote a text from some 100 years in the future?

 

A further example is 1 Nephi 22:20, a quote from Deuteronomy 18:15,19;

 

“Jehovah your God will raise up to you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, One like me. To Him you shall listen…And it shall happen, whatever man will not listen to My Words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.” (KJV)

 

In the BOM it becomes, “For Moses truly said to the fathers, “The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet to you from your brothers, One like me. You shall hear Him in all things, whatever He may say to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” (1 Nephi 22:20)

This is a paraphrase of the Deuteronomy text from Acts 3:22-23. So how did Nephi some 580 years BC come to quote Luke from c.70AD?

This last text has an interesting, although troubling application in Mormonism. The BOM correctly identifies Jesus as the one spoken of here. The next verse states;

“And now I, Nephi, declare unto you, that this prophet of whom Moses spake was the Holy One of Israel; wherefore, he shall execute judgement in righteousness.” (1 Nephi 22:21)

However, the BOM Seminary Student Manual, commenting on the previous chapter, which follows the same theme and quotes Isaiah 59, begins by identifying Jesus in these chapters but goes on to make an unequivocal application to Joseph Smith;

Verses 1–9 [of 1 Nephi 21] describe the Savior, Jesus Christ, who was called before His birth (see v. 1), whose words cut to the hearts of the wicked like a sharp sword (see v. 2), whose life is unblemished like a polished shaft (see v. 2), who is a light unto the Gentiles (see v. 6), and who is despised of men (see v. 7).

 

The manual goes on to claim:

Because the lives of prophets are sometimes seen as types, or examples, of the Savior, these verses could also properly be applied to Isaiah. They might also be applied to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

• He was foreordained. He testified: “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 365; see also 2 Nephi 3:7–15).

• His words were sharp and his life a polished shaft. He said: “I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, . . . lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, . . . backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women—all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304).

• He was sent to be a light unto the Gentiles. The Lord declared to him, “This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:7–10; see also D&C 86:11).

• He was despised of men. The angel Moroni prophesied that both good and evil would be spoken about Joseph among all people (see Joseph Smith—History 1:33).

Lets rerun that:

Because the lives of prophets are sometimes seen as types, or examples, of the Savior, these verses could also properly be applied to Isaiah. They might also be applied to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

 

There is much to be said about the use of typology (typos, ‘seal-impression’) in the Christian faith, but look carefully at what has been done here.

 

1. This is about Christ
2. People are sometimes seen as “types” of Christ (no justification for following this line)
3. Isaiah might be seen as a type of Christ (He is not)
4. Joseph Smith can also be seen as a type of Christ (Where they really wanted to arrive)

 

A ‘type’ is, “a way of setting forth the biblical history of salvation so that some of its earlier phases are seen as anticipations of later phases, or some later phase as the recapitulation or fulfilment of an earlier one.” (New Bible Dictionary)

 

The most obvious example comes from Romans 5:14 where Adam as head of the old creation, is an obvious counterpart to Christ, head of the new creation. All humanity is viewed as being either “in Adam”, in whom “all die”, or, “in Christ”, in whom all are to be “made alive.” (NBD)

 

Biblical typology runs in one direction, whether in anticipation or recapitulation, leading from the type to Christ. Adam, Abel, Abraham, are all types of Christ. So are Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the sacrificial system, cities of refuge, etc. The idea is that we see “shadows” of Christ in these people and things. Paul writes of such things in Colossians 2:16-17. The type is a shadow, the reality is Christ.

 

The Mormon argument appears to run in the other direction, from reality to shadow; the verse is about Christ; Christ has ‘types’,; Isaiah might be a type; so might Joseph Smith. But if you want to find a type of Christ in Isaiah it is not the prophet but King Hezekiah. Isaiah is not a “type” of Christ but he must be made so to achieve the conceit that makes Joseph Smith a type of Christ. It is convoluted but achieves its end if readers are unwary, and don’t know or understand biblical typology.

 

But then, if Mormon uses of the Bible in the Book of Mormon are so slipshod and cavalier I suppose it is too much to expect correct exegesis. This is why it is important to look at these things, because it isn’t just a question of interpretation. There are established, trustworthy, and well understood methods of handling Scripture and when words are twisted there are consequences, in this instance of eternal importance.

 

If you want to read more on the elevation of Joseph Smith in Mormonism you can read Joseph Smith and Jesus the Christ on the Mormon Chapbook.

 

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues on The Mormon Chapbook

 

The Book of Mormon covers a similar period to the Bible, from 2,200 BC to 400 AD but, while the Bible contains 66 books the Book of Mormon contains only 15 books and is less than half the size of the Old Testament.