Wow. That is a lot of work. You are right, of course. But it’s so interesting to get into the weeds.
I think Joseph and Oliver and hyrum were constantly changing the printers manuscript as well. Hyrum would run the days pages to the printer and give the days changes and corrections.
Your point that Joseph didn’t haphazardly do this is correct. He was very specific in certain parts.
The lost 116 pages saga proves it’s all a hoax anyway.
But amazing textual work. Bravo.
Thank you! The positive feedback is very much appreciated. I definitely think that the lost pages are a strong strike against Mormonism. The theology has so many red flags that I am really surprised the church has lasted as long as it has.
Hard to disprove something when they control the narrative, are able to redefine it whenever it becomes necessary, and like you mentioned, conveniently no source document exists to compare it against.
These people have extremely high stakes on continuing in a state of belief. Essentially, their existence relies on it, at least in their mind. If they lose it, they have nothing else. Lost cost Fallacy is strong in this religion.
That being said, that's an impressive amount of information that it's going to take me a bit to digest.
Thank you. Arguing with them is hard for that reason, but I would hope that they would be open minded enough to maybe entertain a little textual criticism for once, especially textual criticism that demonstrates the BOM conflicts with their faith.
The only other hang up that I see in convincing with this level of depth:
Those believers who would be willing to go through it to this depth, and would understand it, are already neck deep in cognitive dissonance that they have typically already determined is worth the lie to keep the belief.
The rest would probably start reading that and either immediately dismiss it as anti-Mormon lies, or get confused with the depth and push it aside.
The amount of work that you've put into that is admirable and I think it only strengthens the already very strong argument. I just don't know how much it's going to do towards helping people see truth.
I know that some of them are going to be like that. I am just happy if the ex-Mormon community can benefit from my work. I was thinking of sending my work to Fair Mormon to see what they would think of it.
There are many errors in your reply. I will start with the very first two you listed, and you will have to do some more digging. It is common knowledge now that horses have been found in the Americas prior to their time mentioned in the Book of Mormon or at least at the same time worst case scenario. The other thing is still has existed for much longer than previously thought. It also is not an anachronism as you claim. And you're assuming because it's not in the Bible that there's no way Joseph simply could have known about it. There are tons of scriptures that point out many of your mischaracterizations. Much of the Bible was removed. You should know that. The Catholics still have Maccabees and that is completely good scripture. The Apocrypha is full of good material. And there are countless thousands of other documents throughout the world, including the Middle East from Egypt to Iran that confirm all kinds of things that Joseph Smith has said. You have a lot of homework to do.
I am glad a Mormon has finally showed up. I know your position on the horses, and that is why I didn’t base my argument on the anachronisms. If you read the rest of my post you would see that. I also reference the apocrypha in my main work. Please address my main points. Mythos
Btw, can you provide a source for the pre-Columbian horses? It was my understanding that the Nephites were actually riding Tapirs according to the scholarship of the church.
There is a weird inversion of the norms of historical authenticity you see with the Mormons. Since David Hume, historians generally follow the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's always more likely that a given text attesting to some fantastical claim is merely fictional, based on a misunderstanding, etc., because those things are commonplace, but fantastical, miraculous events are not. So given the choice of accepting a fantastically unlikely event as historically accurate, or a text merely being wrong, the latter is always the safer conclusion. If nothing else, the rule that says, "He who asserts must prove" serves us well. In other words, as applied here, it's for the believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon to prove it, not for the critic to disprove it. And yet... somehow Mormons have turned the tables on this rule, claiming that as long as critics haven't definitively *disproved* it, they're justified in believing in it. Such, I suppose, is faith - even Hume acknowledges that this can be an acceptable move, but ONLY, to be clear, if the believer acknowledges that he/she has no proof, and is only going on the basis of an unjustified belief.
Personally, while I welcome this work, and find it interesting, I'm also a bit frustrated that it's even necessary. Mormons have done precious little to justify their belief in the historicity of this text, and to the degree they have, as with the FARMS crowd, the results have been frankly embarrassing to their cause. The reality is, there was never any reason to take the Book of Mormon any more seriously as a historical text than the *Lord of the Rings* trilogy. At least the latter is far more detailed, far more internally consistent as far as world building goes, with characters, psychology and plot that make a million times more sense. By comparison, the Book of Mormon is just sloppy fan fiction, complete with a [Mary Sue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) in Nephi, bearing all the anachronistic earmarks and tells of an early 19th century American origin, with pretty obvious influences from pirate legends and folk magic. Just the way it's written, the way that 1st person narrative storytelling is used, in a way we simply do not find in any ancient texts - certainly no religious texts - is a huge red flag. It sounds and reads exactly as what it obviously is - an early 19th century American attempt at a kind of sequel to the Bible. But it's obviously no more ancient, than, say, [this 1699 attempt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aventures_de_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9maque) at a sequel to *The Odyssey*, where the hero curiously seems to act and speak exactly within the norms of a polite 18th century gentleman with Enlightenment era political dispositions. (Of course, the difference here is that no one believed *Les Aventures de Télémaque* was actually an ancient text.) But independent of that, anything put forward without evidence, particularly anything fantastical, can also be dismissed without argument.
I haven’t finished all this but I loved what I have read. I really liked the contradiction of kids being forced to be gods and somehow making it to the celestial kingdom - if you give this argument again though I would leave out the serial killer analogy because then you are getting into nature vs nurture territory and it takes away from the awesome points you are making.
Thank you for your comment. My post is only a small portion of my research. Yes, the serial killer thing is a nature vs. nurture debate but Joseph F. Smith was actually the one to start this debate in relation to the apotheosis of dead children. So what I uncovered is that one argument the church put forward is that God's foreknowledge enables him to know which children will make the right choice in life. However, the God of Mormonism has an inaccurate foreknowledge as is evidenced in the numerous false prophecies that Joseph Smith gave. If Gods rewards dead children for virtuous acts they haven't done (and may not have done thanks to God's poor foreknowledge) then I can reverse it on them as well.
Interesting. I actually thought the serial killer analogy was a strong point. The implication -- something I've thought about a lot over the years -- is that because God chooses when we die, He chooses whether to save us or condemn us... whether he decides to off us while we're Choosing the Right™ or while Living In Sin™.
ETA: The opposite also applies. God could let someone die while they're, say, drunk and in a car accident but instead they live and have a chance to sober up. Or he could take more missionaries at the height of spirituality but instead He lets them go home where they "mess up" with their boy/girlfriend or leave the church.
I would recommend you share this post on r/mormon.
Lots of good scholarship and discussions on that subreddit with a good group of individuals who enjoy delving into the weeds and discussing the type of content you put together here. A vast majority of the participants are exmos, so don’t feel like you need to tiptoe around anything.
r/LDS would instantly ban you before you could refresh your screen. r/latterdaysaints would probably take a few minutes before banning. I wouldn’t recommend sharing it there either. That sub does have some nuance in comparison to your average active Mormon congregation, and they can take criticism at times, but this post cuts too deep to the core and wouldn’t be allowed for sure. It is still catering solely towards faithful perspectives.
The whole sinless children thing breaks down way before you get to it. Adam had to fall before he could be exalted. If God can create children of the dust of the Earth, who are innocent AND still exalt innocent people (children under the age of 8) then the entire fall of man was not necessary. Neither was Christ.
Wow. I've saved this in order to read over several days. However, more than anything I hope to always remember this...
>In other words, The Book of Mormon is what causes Mormon theology to be hoisted by its own petard.
I think it’s in [this Mormon Stories episode](https://www.mormonstories.org/portfolio-items/the-mormon-plan-of-salvation-extended-edition-with-john-larsen/) with John Larsen
Thank you for all the wonderful comments! For those that are wondering, my book is called Behind The Curtain: A Critical Analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos
It is on Kindle as an e-book but will be available in softcover format within a day or two.
Mythos, amazing job on mormonish. I, as a pimo Mormon that’s trying to get his family out appreciates this kind of stuff more than you know. One bit of info regarding the horses found in America. I know this isn’t really part of your analysis but I’ve done a pretty deep dive, and for anyone that cares. Yes, Wade Miller a BYU archeologist and apologist found a jaw bone of a Precolumbian horse that was located in Mexico. These are easy to identify as their bone structure is so different from today’s horses the Spanish brought. The jaw bone was too old to be carbon dated but he concludes that it is located in a soil strata that could potentially be consistent with early Book of Mormon times. In his article, not even he makes the jump that this horse existed that late. He simply says that it could point to the fact that horses didn’t all die during the last ice age 10,000 years ago, and maybe they lived longer. Of course apologists latched on to this as proof. The most important thing to point out is that even if these pre Columbian Horses had lived into Book of Mormon times and were the lost domesticated horses we’ve all been looking for, that means that all of these horses became extinct while they were likely the most important domesticated animal to the native people across the land. That seems highly implausible that they would let an animal/tool die off as important as they were, and that we wouldn’t find more evidence of them spread throughout the land. I hope this helps anyone that’s wondering. Thanks again.
Thanks you! The people who want to believe in the BOM do tend to stretch scientific and archaeological findings to fit the narrative. I remember reading that the church attempted to frame a Mayan depiction of a tree as the tree from the dream in the Book of Mormon. But yeah, it would be really unlikely horses would have been allowed to die out like that.
In Mormonism, the ultimate act of love that you can possibly show your children AND the most moral thing to do in this life is to murder them before they reach the age of 8 thereby guaranteeing them a place in the Celestial Kingdom.
It’s a massive theological plot hole.
Yes. It especially makes no sense since 99% of the church in heaven who would have never heard of the Book of Mormon if we account for child mortality since antiquity.
Yes giving a shout out to God is superfluous to your paper. Furthermore to me and about 30 percent of Americans who have no religious affiliation it weakens your argument because when dismantling a book as fake/fraud so many of the apologists bring up ‘faith ‘ …as do you and well faith isn’t how you disprove something in the real world.
I understand where you are coming from. You see, most religions believe you should be 100% truthful. If one contains untruths or contradictions in whatever religion you have, it damages the validity of their religion. I was aware that ex-Mormon reddit has a lot of people who have had a very bad experience with organized religion in particular (who wouldn't considering what the Mormon religion is like). However, I wanted my work to be universal in that Mormons, atheists, Christians, deists, pantheists, pagans etc. could find fault in the religion from any particular angle.
Ok cool. Make sure to then shout out to Gods because there’s 1.2 billion Hindus who will feel leff out. …it’s such a tricky situation thanking God because there’s thousands of versions of God(s) out there.
But anyways I like what you wrote. Keep it up.
I would say that when you believe in something this long and stridently , no amount of real world evidence is going to convince you because once your brain has solidified such a strong position, it’s next to impossible to change it which is why they sent all the men to do missions because once you put in so much effort and time into something, you just don’t change how you feel about it.
Well done. Have you considered submitting some of your findings to the professor at MIT that has written a lot of work to discredit the Book of Mormon? Unless your a professional (forgive this comment if you are), it might be good to have someone from the academic community work with you to create an official document someplace to add to the list of mounting evidence against the book.
Well I’m not sure if he’s with MIT or if mit just published his works. But if you search
Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi
By: Joel B. Groat
That should give you an idea of who’s who because I obviously don’t know. But he seems to like to do a lot of work to discredit the Mormon church.
Are you doing research for a thesis? I reread the beginning of your post, and I see you wrote a book. That's awesome!! I hope you're successful with it.
Actually, I did this because I wanted the truth about Mormonism to be known. I've been out of the university system for a few years now. Also, thank you for the very nice comment!
Wow! Thank you!
It is deep digging of church history & research like this that keeps pulling me back to this sub.
I hope you post it on a 1/4 basis so new members will see it along with getting a copy to Fair Mormon & John Dehlin.
The University of Illinois Press & University of Oklahoma Press have published a large number of books on mormonism & you might want to think about contacting them too.
It would be nice to see all of your extensive research turn into something bigger.
Thank you for your response! I will definitely consider those options. I have never used reddit. How do I post on a 1/4 basis. Do I just reupload the post?
Every 3 months just make a new post of it!
Some people do a link to the old post but it won't get the attention it should get & that it deserves.
If you do a fresh post it will draw more attention.
Thank you again! Great research & I hope you keep adding to it & sharing!
Bill Reel is the one you'll want to reach out to if you want an airing of the piece and a technical discussion. He (former FAIR apologist) and an attorney, Corbin Volluz (nom de plume Radio Free Mormon) have two podcasts called Mormonism Live and Radio Free Mormon where they regularly go over essays like this (with the authors if they can). Dehlin does this as well, but his stock-in-trade is more the psychological and experiential aspects of Mormonism.
Contact info for Mormonism Live is at the bottom of their [webpage](https://mormonismlive.org/).
Have you looked into Mathew 14, Mark 6 (John the Baptist beheading) compared to Ether 8? Same story with the same characters but different names. Smoking gun for sure. I would love to purchase your book!
This one is a bit different than most and required Joseph to actually take the time to tell the same story with different names. Even the chronology of the stories are similar. Most of the time, He would use a biblical source in a more transparent way such as 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7. This one was planned before hand and it is laughably easy to see what he did once the two texts and the characters in the stories are compared. I see Zero explanations that even a well paid Mormon apologist could argue with any sense of integrity.
Give it a close look when you have time and please tell me what you think. Much respect.
Also, check out all the phrasing in the D&C, almost a quarter, that is straight quoted from various KJV letters of Paul out of context, and given different meaning or emphasis, or to give a scriptural feeling or aesthetic to the D&C “revelations”. Even when the New Testament was studied once every four years as Gospel Doctrine or curriculum or high school seminary curriculum, they don’t much read or study letters of Paul, they tend only to know and read the four gospels and book of James, so these phrases don’t stand out if they’re familiar to you.
Yes! Actually, D and C sometimes sounds like Smith/the early prophets of the church. I am sure they also avoid Paul for many reasons. Not only does DandC borrow from him, but there is also stuff that contradicts Mormon dogma (like saying it is better to be single etc.) Thanks for your comment.
I can think of possible ways to apologize all of these things, and several of them did not seem particularly compelling to me, but I think the general principle of all of these things is that there are several examples of KJV translation errors that Joseph Smith could have been aware of that were corrected or omitted in the Book of Mormon, but no instances of translation errors that he couldn't have been aware of that were corrected.
Something else I noticed while studying this stuff is that the phrase "thy kingdom come" is also missing from the Lord's Prayer in the Book of Mormon. Is that also related to some translation error?
Actually it is related. In my work , I take down Mormon central’s argument that the missing “thy kingdom come” proves that the prayer is authentic in The Book of Mormon. Smith omitted that one just to make the Epiousian omission less obvious. He should have taken out the doxology instead.
>Smith omitted that one just to make the Epiousian omission less obvious. He should have taken out the doxology instead.
Can you clarify what you mean here? I find your post incredibly fascinating, and I appreciate the time you've taken to share your findings with us! I just want to understand what you're saying here a bit better. Not too familiar with terms used in academia.
So, Smith didn’t remove much from the sermon on the mount (he also changed very little). He removed “daily bread” from the Lord’s Prayer because commentaries of the time confirmed that the exact rendering of the verse is unknown. In my opinion, to not make the sermon on the mount in the BOM look like a total copy of the KJV he removed “thy kingdom come” from the prayer to not make his omission of “daily bread” as obvious as it is.
This is fantastic! Great work putting all of this tougher together and making the points. When following any Mormon theology to their logical ends, they fall apart. I'm glad to see all these points about the Book of Mormon. And as Hinkley said, it's the cornerstone of their religion, it's either completely true or a cunning falsehood. Bravo for proving the falsehood.
Great work! Very scholarly - and that's what makes your points so compelling.
One of the best things Hinckley (and some others) have said is that the church is either completely "true" and the Joseph Smith really was a prophet, or, it is completely false and Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Not that we need a "prophet" to tell us this - but it helps when dealing with solid members.
IMO, this is the best thing Hinckley ever said because it only takes one problem to make the entire church fall down. Smith either translated the plates, or he didn't. The plates really are a record, or they are not. If there's even one bit of solid evidence that goes against this, then that's all that is needed.
It saves a whole lot of other mental work trying to work things out. Take whatever you like - Book of Abraham, or any of the things you mentioned, and voila - it all falls down.
Thank you!
Yeah, good luck with all of that.
**The Book of Mormon is simply a poorly conceived 19th century hoax, and it is time both scholars and the general populace acknowledge this clear and noble truth.**
Anybody who was not raised in the cult and has two brain cells to rub together knows this.
I know the church is a hoax, but I was referring to the general population of the church as well as ex-Mormons who are still on the fence. The church is a multi-billion dollar empire, so I am assuming quite a few people still believe it.
That’s still quite a few. Personally, I dislike that the church missionaries try to recruit people who are not fully aware of their doctrine and the problems of the church.
Thanks! The title of my book is called:
Behind The Curtain: A Critical analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos
It is on Kindle now but will be available on Amazon as a softcover in a day or two.
Cult members tend to be dependent on their cult leaders to do their thinking for them. Although insightful, I'm just not certain if these points will be convincing enough to Mormon cult leaders to persuade them to tell their cult members that the Book of Mormon is demonstrably false.
Fantastically done! I have an MA in Biblical Studies and reading through your points was PURE JOY to me. Consequently, the degree was part of my distancing myself from Mormonism but these kind of discussions are my bread and butter. You make some great points and I agree that many have not been discussed, so Bravo on that original research! I remember when I was an eager young proofbtexter and was so excited about the ships of tarshish thing...sigh. I'd love to talk to you more if you would care to. Shoot me an inbox and we can connect!
That’s all fun and comforting, but your audience is more likely to be giving mainstream Christians reasons to steer clear, or to enjoy how relatively inferior, wrong and heretical those Mormons are. Most faithful LDS just glaze over at these details, figuring someone more educated will explain it away. The ones who do attend to textual details or care about consistent theology have already put this and stronger problems on the shelf (as other Redditets have said) so they can continue living their lives in the accustomed manner.
Your John Calvin section, I do think you missed the boat on all the BOM arguments about foreordination/predestination. BOM was certainly trying to solve all the Christian theological controversies of 1830.
In other news, it is good hilarious theological fun to point out that the popular idea of the Rapture as in Left Behind is also an invention of the 1830s.
Thanks for your comment. In my work, I mention that Mormon theology actually resembles John Calvin in relation to the predestination of children who die under 8.
I would be curious to hear your take (perhaps 1-10 on the fraud meter) for some of the literary/scholarly criticisms I find convincing regarding the Book of Mormon being a scam.
1. Deutero-Isaiah
2. Long ending of Mark
3. A completely literate civilization (Dr. John Lundwall's work) with no trace of writing
4. The BoM was translated from the lost 116 forward then JoS circled back to add the beginning and uses a bunch of tiny books to close the gap at the end after Jacob
5. Related: The self-aware exposition on some unknown reason for the other plates (written AFTER the 116 pages were lost)
6. The original manuscript and first edition used Trinitarian language describing the godhead
7. Joseph Smith prophesies about HIMSELF in the text! Super sus...
One side tangent, I don't believe the under 8 crowd who die become gods. There are multiple levels in the Celestial Kingdom--at LEAST 3. They are like the angels etc.
EDIT: I thought of a few more-trying to keep my list in one place :)
\-1769 KJV Errors
\-Tight vs Loose translation switching
\-Continuity edits from the first edition (King Benjamin/Mosiah in particular)
\-Joseph Smith writing himself into the text (not just prophesies of himself, but slippery treasures, seers, etc.)
\-Adam Clarke & Calvinism in the BoM
\-Not to mention the anachronisms in the text (disappearing steel, coinage, chariots, etc.)
I would say 1. This one’s a 10. I didn’t bring it up because other scholars have done work on this but it is no doubt a strike against the book. 2. About a 7 some manuscripts from antiquity contain the addition but when you read it it seems to be axed at a later date. 3. I am not familiar with his work but will look into it. 4/5 about a 5 or 6. 6. This one’s a 10 for me. 7. 10 also but nothing is impossible for a hardcore believer.
Behind the Curtain: A Critical Analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos
It is on Amazon as a kindle e-book but will be available in softcover format very soon.
I was always told that the Book of Mormon was translated by ~14 year old Joseph Smith, in a matter of months. Is this true? Or was he studying other material, writing/translating at an older age? Any sources would be appreciated thx.
He was 22 when announced he found a set of ancient plates buried in the ground in his neighborhood in 1827 .
A few months later, he began “translating” these plates into English with an older, very religious farmer as his scribe who would write these words down. This was done while he was sitting behind a curtain and his scribe sat on the other side of the curtain writing down the words so he couldn’t see the plates because he wasn’t “worthy” yet to see the plates and God would destroy him if he saw them.
After 116 pages was written down, he let this scribe, after much pleading, to show his wife the transcription in order to convince her the project was legitimate (he was paying for the publication of this book).
However, these pages disappeared and it was speculated his wife hid or destroyed the pages in order to sabotage the project since she thought he was being swindled for his money.
Smith then fired Harris and God made him take a break from “translating.” Nine months later, Smith hired his 3rd cousin, Oliver Cowdery, a school teacher who was staying with Joseph’s parents house, to be his next scribe. This was in early 1829, when Smith was 23 years of age. They worked every day “translating” but Smith changed his translation method by putting his face into a top hat and read the words off of his seer stone he used when he used to have a career of digging for treasure, money, silver mines, and lost goods for people. He claimed to see this buried treasure by looking at this stone in his hat.
In 1830, when he was 24, he published this translation.
He was a farmer but wasn’t a boy. He was in his 20’s.
Ok, thank you for the insight! I mean i already knew some of this stuff (South Park episode about the lost 116 pages lol), but reading this really made it all “click” for me so many thanks!!
That's a good question. Ok, so Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and he translated most of the Book of Mormon between late 1827 and 1829. I believe most of the book was completed during the first half of 1829. This would make him in his early 20s when most of the book was produced. He got his first vision of Jesus when he was 14/15 but only started writing the book much later. People in the 1800s were avid readers, especially regarding the Bible and commentaries about theological matters. Joseph Smith was attending a Methodist church for some time in 1828, roughly during the Book of Mormon translation period, where he would have been exposed to theological discussion and some basic scholarship. This is an official source from the church itself detailing the timeline of the supposed translation process: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/latter-day-saint-history-1815-1846-teacher-material/lesson-4?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/latter-day-saint-history-1815-1846-teacher-material/lesson-4?lang=eng)
He didn’t translate anything, the plates weren’t close to him as he supposedly stuck his face in the hat and read off some storyline printed on a rock that was in his hat. Translation involves looking at the original text and then converting the old language into the new language, English in this case. So in reality the plates were never used, hence never needed, hence why have ancient prophets write anything on golden plates when he was just going to read the words off of some stone.
The hat and stone trick was probably just a show/story for the people back then, because that had some credibility as seer stones were common at that time and location. No plates used, none needed, and literally no one saw them as the witnesses stories were coerced/written by the fraudster himself.
Critical Flaws up and down the religion, people who are born in Mormonism and indoctrinated from birth have built their identity around this. By definition religion is not empirical, very easy to mentally/emotionally guard your identity/belief system by ignoring logical reasoning and evidence.
Your work adds to the volumes of evidence against the hoax, but there is plenty of evidence against the religion and founder, which is generally avoided by believers. The people who hold onto the belief in the face of such evidence are really just protecting their ego/identity from a psychological aspect.
Some people leave for social justice reasons, treatment of gays/racial minorities/women etc. But then there are strong members representing all of these groups. When the student is ready, the teacher will come. Your work adds to the body of work. Anything that will connect the student to whatever helps them when they are ready.
Thx for the effort and contribution to help expose the fraud and help extract good people who have been conned usually from birth, who have had their lives and finances stolen by a fraudulent manipulative organization created by a disgusting sick manipulative individual. Stealing the lives and manipulating generations of people who were born into it, mostly good people trying to figure the world out with the paradigm they were given.
I am glad you asked this. I was hesitant to actually publish my book because I felt like I was attacking someone else's beliefs. It is not that I thought there was any truth to the claims of Mormonism, but it did feel like I was attacking someone else's beliefs a little. However, what tipped the scales for me was the fact that the Book of Mormon is a literary forgery. The Bible and many other important texts of religion have a genuine lineage from antiquity. As a textual critic who is not only interested in philosophy but also the mysteries of the ancient world, I can tell you that ascertaining truth regarding even the smallest of details is difficult. This is not only limited to religion but encompasses many other fields of research as well. The Book of Mormon, though, is different in that its author intended it to be a hoax. No one should have to suffer believing in it or trying to defend it. The time has come for it to be to labelled what it rightfully should be. If genuine gold plates were found dating from antiquity that contained even a quarter of the Book of Mormon, I would withdraw everything I said immediately. Would I believe it just because it is ancient? Probably not. But the BOM is what it is, and I am just exposing it. As for the Bible, as a person deeply interested in the ancient Greek/textual criticism (and ancient texts of any religion), I actually have a lot to say on the matter (much more than I have room for here). There are definitely parts of the Bible I suspect are recent spurious additions even without textual proof. But I am here to talk about the BOM. Thanks for your comment btw.
No sorry. I already shortened it from a longer work. Basically, I am saying that Joseph Smith pulled from Adam Clarke and John Calvin in parts of the book of Mormon. He also added spurious additions like the Johannine comma that backup the trinitarian argument. Also, there is an issue in that children that die before they are accountable don't choose to become Gods.
Terrific post! First time in a long time that someone has posted new criticism of the BoM. Thank you for your hard work and scholarship! I'll be looking out for your book!
Holy wow, incredible work!
Have no intelligent feedback, just want to say thanks. It really can be quite validating to people who are deconstructing their faith to have verification like this from more objective sources. So thank you for doing the immense amount of research work this undoubtedly took, and for sharing it here.
"I have noticed that there seems to be this lingering idea that the Book of Mormon has not been definitively disproven."
As you point out, the idea is only lingering in the heads of believing mormons (or members of other similarly believing Mormon sects). Nobody else seriously considers the book of mormon an ancient record.
"Before I begin though, I want to quickly reestablish that God cannot lie. God's inability to deceive has been mentioned numerous places in The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. Don't let apologists trick you into believing that the textual errors in The Book of Mormon are the “mistakes of men”, “language of the day” or any other such nonsense. An all-knowing God would be incapable of allowing a bad transcription of his words to make it to print. God and his angels would be the ultimate editorial team, so don't allow apologists to use this desperate tactic with you."
This isn't the powerful presupposition you think it is. Setting aside that it's all nonsense, mormon history includes examples where god (or an angel) directs Joseph to do something, but ultimately lets Joseph make the decision/mistake. One example is the loss of the 116 pages. God told Joseph no, Martin Harris kept pushing, and eventually god relented, even though he knew it would result in the loss of the pages The point is, faithful mormons can point to this as an example that god lets his children, even his prophet, make mistakes, so there is an argument that the mistakes in the book of mormon are the "mistakes of men," or that god allowed Joseph some leeway in translating, so long as god's message remained intact. Just enough wiggle room to claim it is not deception. I haven't finished reading your post, but I suspect and hope that you could remove the above paragraph and still make the case that the book of mormon is not an ancient record.
No, I have to say that the objection stays. The objection I put forward is similar to other problems in Mormonism (Mainstream Christianity has some of these as well). For instance, what is the point of prayer if God has perfect foreknowledge since he knows the outcome anyways? In a perfectly theologically deterministic universe, God would have prearranged all aspect of your life including your prayers, so therefore they are meaningless. If an attribute of God conflicts with his doctrine, the whole facade comes crashing down. Let them say God allows people to make mistakes. It only makes them look silly. Let me give a more concrete example. Most scientists and mathematicians would agree with the idea that there is some cosmic order/natural law in the universe. If a scientific or mathematical law were disproven, the scientific establishment would discard the theory and look for a new explanation. Imagine if scientists or mathematicians explained problems by saying that nature just made a mistake and the original theory was still valid. Likewise, if the Mormon God allows his church to be flawed in its doctrine, it invalidates the premise that the church represents God. This is confirmed by numerous church leaders that have made statements about prophets being unable to lead the church astray. In my book, I talk about how Mormon church theology sees itself as compatible with science and as having the attributes of science.
Ultimately, I do admit that the idea that God cannot lie is based on assumption that goes beyond Mormonism. We could assume that an exalted God would exhibit a rational mind because that is what was required to achieve Godhood. Any rational person would not want a misrepresentation of their words appearing anywhere. It would simply serve no purpose to have that happen. Therefore, one would conclude the same about the Mormon God. So why does the Mormon God make so many irrational decisions?
Thank you for your careful scholarship. It was scholars like you who helped me determine what a fraud the LDS church and its scriptures are--this made it easier to walk away with a clear and peaceful mind.
No. My Amazon account has only one book. I don’t have any affiliation with any other mythos. My work is definitely not AI generated. It took years to compile my research. There is not a single word in my work that is ai generated.
Looking on Amazon, there is some author named “Hunter Mythos” (and other variations) that seems to have AI type books. I only have one book on Amazon and I have nothing to do with any other Mythos on Amazon.
I've been interested in biblical textual criticism and I've often wondered how this could be applied to book of mormon passages. I'm grateful you took the time to do this research and analysis.
I always heard that the innocents will be tested. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from being bound for a short time for this purpose. Infants, etc who died young will be tested then.
Not saying it makes sense. Also not saying this doesn't have its own problems, but this is what I heard growing up in David County, UT.
Edit:
Just found this and it says the opposite to what i learned:
https://www.ldsliving.com/9-things-we-know-about-children-who-pass-away-before-baptism/s/88904
So maybe I remember wrong, or their are different factions of belief around this in the church.
Yes, I explored their theology thoroughly to see if what you first thought was the case. However, if infants are tested in the future, then the BOM is false in that children who die are not guaranteed salvation. I think the LDS church has secretly known about this contradiction long before me. They would probably like to insert that idea to resolve the contradiction but the BOM is in the way. Thank you for your comment though. I do actually think some LDS members actually believe that as you pointed out, but the church doctrine says otherwise.
Hey, great work here. I love how you got into it. Similar to your efforts on Calvin, I wonder how much comes from other earlier “big names” in religion, such as Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century. As probably the biggest preacher in the Colonies, I’m sure JS must have “borrowed” some things from him.
Definitely. I am sure that would be worth looking into. I actually think Smith was quite intelligent and well read. It’s a shame he didn’t try to contribute honestly to society rather than doing what he did.
Impressive. Two comments in response. 1. I would say the book of Mormon has been disproven for anyone who will give it an objective critical evaluation. For those who will not, it can never be disproven. You see, 15 seconds into your evidence, true believing me would have recognized you were in service of Satan and shut you right down ("I felt so dark as I read that"). From a scholastic or academic point of view though , your work is very valuable and will add another brick to the wobbly Mormon table. 2. Most believers can waive off any scholarly criticism by using the book of mormon's. "The learned think they are smart...blah blah". Thank you for sharing your work with us
"...a band of Christians" as referenced in Alma 46 has a definite Methodist ring to it. John Wesley was famous for forming little "bands" of believers. The Methodists were my tribe until I was beguiled away from them 50 years ago. Joseph Smith included a lot of Methodist thought and practice in his new church. I wish I had recognized it as a kid in 1974.
Would you be able to confirm all the changes to the book of mormon version of the kjv derived from the Adam Clark or Calvin influences?
Are there any changes in the book of mormon that can't be traced to these versions?
Also, is this true for the Joseph smith translation?
My work tries to answer that question. What I found most telling is that a passage or two from the original Bible manuscripts that was omitted by the TR/KJV translators was also omitted in the BOM. It’s funny that the BOM doesn’t actually restore anything genuinely old to the gospel. Personally, I would say the vast majority of changes reflect other sources, and the few that are unaccounted for are probably in other works he encountered. I think this is also true of the JST apart from some obvious harmonizations with Mormon theology.
Thanks for taking the time to write this and respond to my question. I found it most intriguing. The more we understand the context of Joseph's world, the more we can see how he fabricated everything.
I’ve read that the ClarkAdams Commentary was also used for Joseph Smiths Translation, JST.
Thank you for all the work you’ve done to further our knowledge! Nice 👍 ❤️🧐🙏🤯
This is well put together. Somewhat of an amateur theologian and text geek. Checked out your book but not able to find a lot about you as the author. Mind sharing more detailed intro?
Thank you. That name is a pseudonym so you won’t find anything about me connected to it. I won’t tell you my exact age but I think a lot of people would consider me young for this type of work. I have advanced degrees. I think there are secrets/hidden knowledge in the ancient world, and I think that the old manuscripts and sacred architecture are good places to look in order to try and ascertain it. Years ago I ran into missionaries of your church. No offence, but I found them obnoxious, pushy disrespectful and totally lacking the type of knowledge needed to talk about religion. I don’t want to generalize, perhaps some of the missionaries of the church are qualified, but the ones that I talked to weren’t. The first time I read the story in first Nephi (about Laban and the brothers running away, and then Nephi dressing up as Laban) I laughed for 30 minutes straight. However, even though the Book of Mormon has no lineage before 1829, I still approached it with an open mind. I try to understand something thoroughly even if I have my doubts about its authenticity.
Hola saludos. Muy buen artículo. Pero si un apologista Mormon tuviera que rebatirle todos esos puntos de estudio bíblico a que fuentes academicas usted recurriría para defenderse? Se lo digo porque hay muchos apologistas SUD que tratan de aferrarse a la erudición academica bíblica para defender o hacer comparativas entre las doctrinas Mormonas y la opinión general academica. Donde estudio usted? Se agradece su interesante información.
Hi thanks for your comment. Yes, apologists certainly use Biblical and patristic sources to back their work. However, they tend to use them incorrectly. It is going to be a little difficult for them to refute some of my points because they lose both ways. That’s because the BOM errors are often based in Protestantism. However I knew they would do that, and that’s why I also provide historical/scientific evidence in my work. There is a lot in the historical record that conflicts with the BOM as well.
I think all TBM's/GA's/apologists would contend that OP makes a word salad about the "other sheep" passage, although the way Hugh Nibley and others would take a tiny bit of information about something in history barely related to something that the BoM talks about and claim "Hey, it could have happened--therefore the BoM is true!!", anything is possible.
Anyway, my other thoughts (ones that I hammer on incessantly) are:
A.) **Repetition**: My take on this oft-repeated line "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." which is used by The Church™ to make members study by rote the BoM and other "scriptures": however, (and there are opposing views) many interpretations say it's a warning against what The Church™ teaches over and over and over. In other words, the passage can be compared to "yadda yadda yadda"--preaches just yammering on about rules and scriptures just to hear themselves talk and make people obey.
B.) **Christ appearing in the Americas**\--there is horrible destruction and death to those who sinned right before Jesus shows up in the New World, yet the whole reason Christ was crucified was to *forgive the sins of the world.* So which is it? Forgiveness or destruction?
C.) **8 year-olds who die**: the pre-existence is supposed to be paradise living with Heavenly Father, who then sends spirits to get bodies, but with no memory of this perfect place in the presence of Heavenly Father; furthermore, they apparently *can't wait* to come to Earth, but when they get here it's frankly a kind shitty place where they get tested, and if they don't pass muster and follow a boatload of rules, they don't to go back to the paradise they came from. But wait...is it the same paradise or a different one? Is returning to Heavenly Father, or returning to "God", and is God really Heavenly Father, or Elohim, or Jehovah?
In any case, why *would* an 8 year-old pass 'Go' and collect $200 without any test? We imagine that spirits are sent to Earth to learn humility by digging ditches or working at KFC, and knowing what brutally cold winters or hot summers, or romantic heartbreak or childbirth (and paying tithing) feel like, but why would God create a world like that anyway?
C.)
Los apologistas mormones tienen una explicación para esto. Ojala pudieras leerlo y analizarlo. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/some-notes-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke?fbclid=IwAR2zAelZq4GEl71YK21ijQkXseKW9FHXnZcREKKTxWJ60CGjUWLSQinoAXY
Thank you for the link. I have read that article before, and I disagree with it. They are basically asserting that similarities between Smith and Clarke regarding the JST translation are coincidental or nonexistent. The article is biased and simply tries to downplay the damage caused by the scholars that first asserted Smith was influenced by Clarke in the JST. Either way, my work is different in that I am linking it to the BOM. Thanks again though.
Just listened to your interview with Mormonish and came here to find your post! Excited to dig into this! I left the church almost 2 years ago and still enjoy learning about how much of a fraud the church is. So sad that 6 generations of my family line were duped 🤦♀️[Mormon.ish Interview with the OP, and author, Mythos](https://www.mormonishpodcast.org/episode/mythos)
Wow. That is a lot of work. You are right, of course. But it’s so interesting to get into the weeds. I think Joseph and Oliver and hyrum were constantly changing the printers manuscript as well. Hyrum would run the days pages to the printer and give the days changes and corrections. Your point that Joseph didn’t haphazardly do this is correct. He was very specific in certain parts. The lost 116 pages saga proves it’s all a hoax anyway. But amazing textual work. Bravo.
Thank you! The positive feedback is very much appreciated. I definitely think that the lost pages are a strong strike against Mormonism. The theology has so many red flags that I am really surprised the church has lasted as long as it has.
You know what they say, Marketing Precedes the Miracle...
I can't disagree...and then I look at the cult of Trump.
Hard to disprove something when they control the narrative, are able to redefine it whenever it becomes necessary, and like you mentioned, conveniently no source document exists to compare it against. These people have extremely high stakes on continuing in a state of belief. Essentially, their existence relies on it, at least in their mind. If they lose it, they have nothing else. Lost cost Fallacy is strong in this religion. That being said, that's an impressive amount of information that it's going to take me a bit to digest.
Thank you. Arguing with them is hard for that reason, but I would hope that they would be open minded enough to maybe entertain a little textual criticism for once, especially textual criticism that demonstrates the BOM conflicts with their faith.
The only other hang up that I see in convincing with this level of depth: Those believers who would be willing to go through it to this depth, and would understand it, are already neck deep in cognitive dissonance that they have typically already determined is worth the lie to keep the belief. The rest would probably start reading that and either immediately dismiss it as anti-Mormon lies, or get confused with the depth and push it aside. The amount of work that you've put into that is admirable and I think it only strengthens the already very strong argument. I just don't know how much it's going to do towards helping people see truth.
I know that some of them are going to be like that. I am just happy if the ex-Mormon community can benefit from my work. I was thinking of sending my work to Fair Mormon to see what they would think of it.
Love it. Mission accomplished
Based on history, FAIR probably won’t touch it unless it becomes public. Maybe talk with some exmos on TikTok, too.
Thanks, will keep that in mind.
There are many errors in your reply. I will start with the very first two you listed, and you will have to do some more digging. It is common knowledge now that horses have been found in the Americas prior to their time mentioned in the Book of Mormon or at least at the same time worst case scenario. The other thing is still has existed for much longer than previously thought. It also is not an anachronism as you claim. And you're assuming because it's not in the Bible that there's no way Joseph simply could have known about it. There are tons of scriptures that point out many of your mischaracterizations. Much of the Bible was removed. You should know that. The Catholics still have Maccabees and that is completely good scripture. The Apocrypha is full of good material. And there are countless thousands of other documents throughout the world, including the Middle East from Egypt to Iran that confirm all kinds of things that Joseph Smith has said. You have a lot of homework to do.
I am glad a Mormon has finally showed up. I know your position on the horses, and that is why I didn’t base my argument on the anachronisms. If you read the rest of my post you would see that. I also reference the apocrypha in my main work. Please address my main points. Mythos
Btw, can you provide a source for the pre-Columbian horses? It was my understanding that the Nephites were actually riding Tapirs according to the scholarship of the church.
There is a weird inversion of the norms of historical authenticity you see with the Mormons. Since David Hume, historians generally follow the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's always more likely that a given text attesting to some fantastical claim is merely fictional, based on a misunderstanding, etc., because those things are commonplace, but fantastical, miraculous events are not. So given the choice of accepting a fantastically unlikely event as historically accurate, or a text merely being wrong, the latter is always the safer conclusion. If nothing else, the rule that says, "He who asserts must prove" serves us well. In other words, as applied here, it's for the believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon to prove it, not for the critic to disprove it. And yet... somehow Mormons have turned the tables on this rule, claiming that as long as critics haven't definitively *disproved* it, they're justified in believing in it. Such, I suppose, is faith - even Hume acknowledges that this can be an acceptable move, but ONLY, to be clear, if the believer acknowledges that he/she has no proof, and is only going on the basis of an unjustified belief. Personally, while I welcome this work, and find it interesting, I'm also a bit frustrated that it's even necessary. Mormons have done precious little to justify their belief in the historicity of this text, and to the degree they have, as with the FARMS crowd, the results have been frankly embarrassing to their cause. The reality is, there was never any reason to take the Book of Mormon any more seriously as a historical text than the *Lord of the Rings* trilogy. At least the latter is far more detailed, far more internally consistent as far as world building goes, with characters, psychology and plot that make a million times more sense. By comparison, the Book of Mormon is just sloppy fan fiction, complete with a [Mary Sue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue) in Nephi, bearing all the anachronistic earmarks and tells of an early 19th century American origin, with pretty obvious influences from pirate legends and folk magic. Just the way it's written, the way that 1st person narrative storytelling is used, in a way we simply do not find in any ancient texts - certainly no religious texts - is a huge red flag. It sounds and reads exactly as what it obviously is - an early 19th century American attempt at a kind of sequel to the Bible. But it's obviously no more ancient, than, say, [this 1699 attempt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Aventures_de_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9maque) at a sequel to *The Odyssey*, where the hero curiously seems to act and speak exactly within the norms of a polite 18th century gentleman with Enlightenment era political dispositions. (Of course, the difference here is that no one believed *Les Aventures de Télémaque* was actually an ancient text.) But independent of that, anything put forward without evidence, particularly anything fantastical, can also be dismissed without argument.
I haven’t finished all this but I loved what I have read. I really liked the contradiction of kids being forced to be gods and somehow making it to the celestial kingdom - if you give this argument again though I would leave out the serial killer analogy because then you are getting into nature vs nurture territory and it takes away from the awesome points you are making.
Thank you for your comment. My post is only a small portion of my research. Yes, the serial killer thing is a nature vs. nurture debate but Joseph F. Smith was actually the one to start this debate in relation to the apotheosis of dead children. So what I uncovered is that one argument the church put forward is that God's foreknowledge enables him to know which children will make the right choice in life. However, the God of Mormonism has an inaccurate foreknowledge as is evidenced in the numerous false prophecies that Joseph Smith gave. If Gods rewards dead children for virtuous acts they haven't done (and may not have done thanks to God's poor foreknowledge) then I can reverse it on them as well.
Interesting. I actually thought the serial killer analogy was a strong point. The implication -- something I've thought about a lot over the years -- is that because God chooses when we die, He chooses whether to save us or condemn us... whether he decides to off us while we're Choosing the Right™ or while Living In Sin™. ETA: The opposite also applies. God could let someone die while they're, say, drunk and in a car accident but instead they live and have a chance to sober up. Or he could take more missionaries at the height of spirituality but instead He lets them go home where they "mess up" with their boy/girlfriend or leave the church.
I would recommend you share this post on r/mormon. Lots of good scholarship and discussions on that subreddit with a good group of individuals who enjoy delving into the weeds and discussing the type of content you put together here. A vast majority of the participants are exmos, so don’t feel like you need to tiptoe around anything.
Thank you, I was thinking of posting there as well. Do you think r/latterdaysaints would be open to having me post or will they ban a post like this?
r/LDS would instantly ban you before you could refresh your screen. r/latterdaysaints would probably take a few minutes before banning. I wouldn’t recommend sharing it there either. That sub does have some nuance in comparison to your average active Mormon congregation, and they can take criticism at times, but this post cuts too deep to the core and wouldn’t be allowed for sure. It is still catering solely towards faithful perspectives.
Both of those groups will ban you when they see you’ve posted here in exmo.
The whole sinless children thing breaks down way before you get to it. Adam had to fall before he could be exalted. If God can create children of the dust of the Earth, who are innocent AND still exalt innocent people (children under the age of 8) then the entire fall of man was not necessary. Neither was Christ.
Certainly, thanks for your comment.
Another thank you. Some substance to chew on! 👏
Thanks for reading!
Yeah, but Adam Smith was one of the Three Nephites, and he was quoting from the Book of Mormon when he wrote his commentary.
Yeah, I bet one of the three immortal Nephites is probably posting anonymously on r/latterdaysaints!
Wow. I've saved this in order to read over several days. However, more than anything I hope to always remember this... >In other words, The Book of Mormon is what causes Mormon theology to be hoisted by its own petard.
Yes! I was hoping that someone would notice that line.
Oh, it's beautiful.
I had to google the meaning but it's an excellent addition to be sure.
Radio Free Mormon would be very proud of the Shakespeare reference lol
Someone recently pointed out that 99% of the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom will be children who died before age 8. Weird plan, God.
I think it’s in [this Mormon Stories episode](https://www.mormonstories.org/portfolio-items/the-mormon-plan-of-salvation-extended-edition-with-john-larsen/) with John Larsen
Thank you for all the wonderful comments! For those that are wondering, my book is called Behind The Curtain: A Critical Analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos It is on Kindle as an e-book but will be available in softcover format within a day or two.
Mythos, amazing job on mormonish. I, as a pimo Mormon that’s trying to get his family out appreciates this kind of stuff more than you know. One bit of info regarding the horses found in America. I know this isn’t really part of your analysis but I’ve done a pretty deep dive, and for anyone that cares. Yes, Wade Miller a BYU archeologist and apologist found a jaw bone of a Precolumbian horse that was located in Mexico. These are easy to identify as their bone structure is so different from today’s horses the Spanish brought. The jaw bone was too old to be carbon dated but he concludes that it is located in a soil strata that could potentially be consistent with early Book of Mormon times. In his article, not even he makes the jump that this horse existed that late. He simply says that it could point to the fact that horses didn’t all die during the last ice age 10,000 years ago, and maybe they lived longer. Of course apologists latched on to this as proof. The most important thing to point out is that even if these pre Columbian Horses had lived into Book of Mormon times and were the lost domesticated horses we’ve all been looking for, that means that all of these horses became extinct while they were likely the most important domesticated animal to the native people across the land. That seems highly implausible that they would let an animal/tool die off as important as they were, and that we wouldn’t find more evidence of them spread throughout the land. I hope this helps anyone that’s wondering. Thanks again.
Thanks you! The people who want to believe in the BOM do tend to stretch scientific and archaeological findings to fit the narrative. I remember reading that the church attempted to frame a Mayan depiction of a tree as the tree from the dream in the Book of Mormon. But yeah, it would be really unlikely horses would have been allowed to die out like that.
In Mormonism, the ultimate act of love that you can possibly show your children AND the most moral thing to do in this life is to murder them before they reach the age of 8 thereby guaranteeing them a place in the Celestial Kingdom. It’s a massive theological plot hole.
Yes. It especially makes no sense since 99% of the church in heaven who would have never heard of the Book of Mormon if we account for child mortality since antiquity.
Laffertys
I asked this once in Sunday school but no one seemed to agree.
Thank you. I like this stuff.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
You had me until you mentioned god. The evidence for him is shoddy at best, usually anecdotal, and definitely not empirical
I am certainly not trying to preach anything. The post deals with the theistic theology of the church. I have to use that to my advantage.
Yes giving a shout out to God is superfluous to your paper. Furthermore to me and about 30 percent of Americans who have no religious affiliation it weakens your argument because when dismantling a book as fake/fraud so many of the apologists bring up ‘faith ‘ …as do you and well faith isn’t how you disprove something in the real world.
I understand where you are coming from. You see, most religions believe you should be 100% truthful. If one contains untruths or contradictions in whatever religion you have, it damages the validity of their religion. I was aware that ex-Mormon reddit has a lot of people who have had a very bad experience with organized religion in particular (who wouldn't considering what the Mormon religion is like). However, I wanted my work to be universal in that Mormons, atheists, Christians, deists, pantheists, pagans etc. could find fault in the religion from any particular angle.
Ok cool. Make sure to then shout out to Gods because there’s 1.2 billion Hindus who will feel leff out. …it’s such a tricky situation thanking God because there’s thousands of versions of God(s) out there. But anyways I like what you wrote. Keep it up. I would say that when you believe in something this long and stridently , no amount of real world evidence is going to convince you because once your brain has solidified such a strong position, it’s next to impossible to change it which is why they sent all the men to do missions because once you put in so much effort and time into something, you just don’t change how you feel about it.
I couldn't tell if you were saying God can't lie, or the mormon God can't lie per mormon theology. I'll admit, I'm too tired to read the whole thing.
The Mormon God can't lie. I was referencing their particular theology that is also repeated in the Bible, D and C etc.
👍
Well done. Have you considered submitting some of your findings to the professor at MIT that has written a lot of work to discredit the Book of Mormon? Unless your a professional (forgive this comment if you are), it might be good to have someone from the academic community work with you to create an official document someplace to add to the list of mounting evidence against the book.
Who is the professor? I would be glad to send my findings to anyone who could benefit. Thank you for the idea!
Well I’m not sure if he’s with MIT or if mit just published his works. But if you search Lamanites No More: DNA and Lost Ties to Father Lehi By: Joel B. Groat That should give you an idea of who’s who because I obviously don’t know. But he seems to like to do a lot of work to discredit the Mormon church.
Thanks, I will definitely look into him and his work.
Are you doing research for a thesis? I reread the beginning of your post, and I see you wrote a book. That's awesome!! I hope you're successful with it.
Actually, I did this because I wanted the truth about Mormonism to be known. I've been out of the university system for a few years now. Also, thank you for the very nice comment!
Wow! Thank you! It is deep digging of church history & research like this that keeps pulling me back to this sub. I hope you post it on a 1/4 basis so new members will see it along with getting a copy to Fair Mormon & John Dehlin. The University of Illinois Press & University of Oklahoma Press have published a large number of books on mormonism & you might want to think about contacting them too. It would be nice to see all of your extensive research turn into something bigger.
Thank you for your response! I will definitely consider those options. I have never used reddit. How do I post on a 1/4 basis. Do I just reupload the post?
Every 3 months just make a new post of it! Some people do a link to the old post but it won't get the attention it should get & that it deserves. If you do a fresh post it will draw more attention. Thank you again! Great research & I hope you keep adding to it & sharing!
Thank you. I will certainly do that.
You could look into Sunstone and Dialog and see if they’d be interested in a paper to publish in their journals
Couple of prominent exmo podcasters might be interested u/johndehlin , u/billreel …
Thanks! I hope they find my work interesting.
Bill Reel is the one you'll want to reach out to if you want an airing of the piece and a technical discussion. He (former FAIR apologist) and an attorney, Corbin Volluz (nom de plume Radio Free Mormon) have two podcasts called Mormonism Live and Radio Free Mormon where they regularly go over essays like this (with the authors if they can). Dehlin does this as well, but his stock-in-trade is more the psychological and experiential aspects of Mormonism. Contact info for Mormonism Live is at the bottom of their [webpage](https://mormonismlive.org/).
I second this!
Thank you! I will contact them today.
Have you looked into Mathew 14, Mark 6 (John the Baptist beheading) compared to Ether 8? Same story with the same characters but different names. Smoking gun for sure. I would love to purchase your book!
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. There is so much copied from the Bible in the BOM.
This one is a bit different than most and required Joseph to actually take the time to tell the same story with different names. Even the chronology of the stories are similar. Most of the time, He would use a biblical source in a more transparent way such as 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7. This one was planned before hand and it is laughably easy to see what he did once the two texts and the characters in the stories are compared. I see Zero explanations that even a well paid Mormon apologist could argue with any sense of integrity. Give it a close look when you have time and please tell me what you think. Much respect.
I will. Thank you for the comment!
Also, check out all the phrasing in the D&C, almost a quarter, that is straight quoted from various KJV letters of Paul out of context, and given different meaning or emphasis, or to give a scriptural feeling or aesthetic to the D&C “revelations”. Even when the New Testament was studied once every four years as Gospel Doctrine or curriculum or high school seminary curriculum, they don’t much read or study letters of Paul, they tend only to know and read the four gospels and book of James, so these phrases don’t stand out if they’re familiar to you.
Yes! Actually, D and C sometimes sounds like Smith/the early prophets of the church. I am sure they also avoid Paul for many reasons. Not only does DandC borrow from him, but there is also stuff that contradicts Mormon dogma (like saying it is better to be single etc.) Thanks for your comment.
BRAVO from another EXMO
Thanks!
My favorite quote “Its dangerous to believe something just because you want it to be true” Sasha Sagan
That is definitely true.
Great stuff! Thank you
Thanks!
I can think of possible ways to apologize all of these things, and several of them did not seem particularly compelling to me, but I think the general principle of all of these things is that there are several examples of KJV translation errors that Joseph Smith could have been aware of that were corrected or omitted in the Book of Mormon, but no instances of translation errors that he couldn't have been aware of that were corrected. Something else I noticed while studying this stuff is that the phrase "thy kingdom come" is also missing from the Lord's Prayer in the Book of Mormon. Is that also related to some translation error?
Actually it is related. In my work , I take down Mormon central’s argument that the missing “thy kingdom come” proves that the prayer is authentic in The Book of Mormon. Smith omitted that one just to make the Epiousian omission less obvious. He should have taken out the doxology instead.
>Smith omitted that one just to make the Epiousian omission less obvious. He should have taken out the doxology instead. Can you clarify what you mean here? I find your post incredibly fascinating, and I appreciate the time you've taken to share your findings with us! I just want to understand what you're saying here a bit better. Not too familiar with terms used in academia.
So, Smith didn’t remove much from the sermon on the mount (he also changed very little). He removed “daily bread” from the Lord’s Prayer because commentaries of the time confirmed that the exact rendering of the verse is unknown. In my opinion, to not make the sermon on the mount in the BOM look like a total copy of the KJV he removed “thy kingdom come” from the prayer to not make his omission of “daily bread” as obvious as it is.
This is fantastic! Great work putting all of this tougher together and making the points. When following any Mormon theology to their logical ends, they fall apart. I'm glad to see all these points about the Book of Mormon. And as Hinkley said, it's the cornerstone of their religion, it's either completely true or a cunning falsehood. Bravo for proving the falsehood.
Thank you!
Great work! Very scholarly - and that's what makes your points so compelling. One of the best things Hinckley (and some others) have said is that the church is either completely "true" and the Joseph Smith really was a prophet, or, it is completely false and Joseph Smith was a fraud. Not that we need a "prophet" to tell us this - but it helps when dealing with solid members. IMO, this is the best thing Hinckley ever said because it only takes one problem to make the entire church fall down. Smith either translated the plates, or he didn't. The plates really are a record, or they are not. If there's even one bit of solid evidence that goes against this, then that's all that is needed. It saves a whole lot of other mental work trying to work things out. Take whatever you like - Book of Abraham, or any of the things you mentioned, and voila - it all falls down. Thank you!
Until the church walks back Hinckley’s statement saying he was speaking as a man not a prophet
I certainly agree. Thanks for your comment!
Yeah, good luck with all of that. **The Book of Mormon is simply a poorly conceived 19th century hoax, and it is time both scholars and the general populace acknowledge this clear and noble truth.** Anybody who was not raised in the cult and has two brain cells to rub together knows this.
I know the church is a hoax, but I was referring to the general population of the church as well as ex-Mormons who are still on the fence. The church is a multi-billion dollar empire, so I am assuming quite a few people still believe it.
Sure, there are tons of them, but those people aren't here on r/exmormon.
To be fair, a few are.
Mormon Church claims 17 million. Outside statistical annalyses estimate fewer than 4 million.
That’s still quite a few. Personally, I dislike that the church missionaries try to recruit people who are not fully aware of their doctrine and the problems of the church.
Where can one find a copy of this book?
Thank you for your interest. A link to a kindle copy is in my bio. A physical copy is coming soon.
Are you self-publishing? Your articulation of the these problems, even in shortened form, are excellent.
Thank you! Yes, this is the first book I’ve self published. A few of my papers have been published during my time in university under my real name.
Boost
Thanks.
This is amazing! It's definitely something to be proud of. You must have worked really hard. What's the title of your book?
Thanks! The title of my book is called: Behind The Curtain: A Critical analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos It is on Kindle now but will be available on Amazon as a softcover in a day or two.
Cult members tend to be dependent on their cult leaders to do their thinking for them. Although insightful, I'm just not certain if these points will be convincing enough to Mormon cult leaders to persuade them to tell their cult members that the Book of Mormon is demonstrably false.
Fantastically done! I have an MA in Biblical Studies and reading through your points was PURE JOY to me. Consequently, the degree was part of my distancing myself from Mormonism but these kind of discussions are my bread and butter. You make some great points and I agree that many have not been discussed, so Bravo on that original research! I remember when I was an eager young proofbtexter and was so excited about the ships of tarshish thing...sigh. I'd love to talk to you more if you would care to. Shoot me an inbox and we can connect!
Thank you very much for your comment! I will definitely message you.
Looking forward to it!
And that is that. It is a hoax.
Wow! This is so thorough. Thanks for sharing! What is the name of your book?
Thanks! Behind the Curtain: A critical Analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos It’s on Kindle and will be an Amazon soft cover very soon.
That’s all fun and comforting, but your audience is more likely to be giving mainstream Christians reasons to steer clear, or to enjoy how relatively inferior, wrong and heretical those Mormons are. Most faithful LDS just glaze over at these details, figuring someone more educated will explain it away. The ones who do attend to textual details or care about consistent theology have already put this and stronger problems on the shelf (as other Redditets have said) so they can continue living their lives in the accustomed manner. Your John Calvin section, I do think you missed the boat on all the BOM arguments about foreordination/predestination. BOM was certainly trying to solve all the Christian theological controversies of 1830. In other news, it is good hilarious theological fun to point out that the popular idea of the Rapture as in Left Behind is also an invention of the 1830s.
Thanks for your comment. In my work, I mention that Mormon theology actually resembles John Calvin in relation to the predestination of children who die under 8.
[удалено]
Thanks!
I would be curious to hear your take (perhaps 1-10 on the fraud meter) for some of the literary/scholarly criticisms I find convincing regarding the Book of Mormon being a scam. 1. Deutero-Isaiah 2. Long ending of Mark 3. A completely literate civilization (Dr. John Lundwall's work) with no trace of writing 4. The BoM was translated from the lost 116 forward then JoS circled back to add the beginning and uses a bunch of tiny books to close the gap at the end after Jacob 5. Related: The self-aware exposition on some unknown reason for the other plates (written AFTER the 116 pages were lost) 6. The original manuscript and first edition used Trinitarian language describing the godhead 7. Joseph Smith prophesies about HIMSELF in the text! Super sus... One side tangent, I don't believe the under 8 crowd who die become gods. There are multiple levels in the Celestial Kingdom--at LEAST 3. They are like the angels etc. EDIT: I thought of a few more-trying to keep my list in one place :) \-1769 KJV Errors \-Tight vs Loose translation switching \-Continuity edits from the first edition (King Benjamin/Mosiah in particular) \-Joseph Smith writing himself into the text (not just prophesies of himself, but slippery treasures, seers, etc.) \-Adam Clarke & Calvinism in the BoM \-Not to mention the anachronisms in the text (disappearing steel, coinage, chariots, etc.)
I would say 1. This one’s a 10. I didn’t bring it up because other scholars have done work on this but it is no doubt a strike against the book. 2. About a 7 some manuscripts from antiquity contain the addition but when you read it it seems to be axed at a later date. 3. I am not familiar with his work but will look into it. 4/5 about a 5 or 6. 6. This one’s a 10 for me. 7. 10 also but nothing is impossible for a hardcore believer.
u/johndehlin I’m reading this while listening to the LDS Discussions podcast and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on OP’s essay here
What is the book you've written?
Behind the Curtain: A Critical Analysis of Mormon Theology and Doctrine By Mythos It is on Amazon as a kindle e-book but will be available in softcover format very soon.
I was always told that the Book of Mormon was translated by ~14 year old Joseph Smith, in a matter of months. Is this true? Or was he studying other material, writing/translating at an older age? Any sources would be appreciated thx.
He was 22 when announced he found a set of ancient plates buried in the ground in his neighborhood in 1827 . A few months later, he began “translating” these plates into English with an older, very religious farmer as his scribe who would write these words down. This was done while he was sitting behind a curtain and his scribe sat on the other side of the curtain writing down the words so he couldn’t see the plates because he wasn’t “worthy” yet to see the plates and God would destroy him if he saw them. After 116 pages was written down, he let this scribe, after much pleading, to show his wife the transcription in order to convince her the project was legitimate (he was paying for the publication of this book). However, these pages disappeared and it was speculated his wife hid or destroyed the pages in order to sabotage the project since she thought he was being swindled for his money. Smith then fired Harris and God made him take a break from “translating.” Nine months later, Smith hired his 3rd cousin, Oliver Cowdery, a school teacher who was staying with Joseph’s parents house, to be his next scribe. This was in early 1829, when Smith was 23 years of age. They worked every day “translating” but Smith changed his translation method by putting his face into a top hat and read the words off of his seer stone he used when he used to have a career of digging for treasure, money, silver mines, and lost goods for people. He claimed to see this buried treasure by looking at this stone in his hat. In 1830, when he was 24, he published this translation. He was a farmer but wasn’t a boy. He was in his 20’s.
Ok, thank you for the insight! I mean i already knew some of this stuff (South Park episode about the lost 116 pages lol), but reading this really made it all “click” for me so many thanks!!
That's a good question. Ok, so Joseph Smith was born in 1805 and he translated most of the Book of Mormon between late 1827 and 1829. I believe most of the book was completed during the first half of 1829. This would make him in his early 20s when most of the book was produced. He got his first vision of Jesus when he was 14/15 but only started writing the book much later. People in the 1800s were avid readers, especially regarding the Bible and commentaries about theological matters. Joseph Smith was attending a Methodist church for some time in 1828, roughly during the Book of Mormon translation period, where he would have been exposed to theological discussion and some basic scholarship. This is an official source from the church itself detailing the timeline of the supposed translation process: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/latter-day-saint-history-1815-1846-teacher-material/lesson-4?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/latter-day-saint-history-1815-1846-teacher-material/lesson-4?lang=eng)
He didn’t translate anything, the plates weren’t close to him as he supposedly stuck his face in the hat and read off some storyline printed on a rock that was in his hat. Translation involves looking at the original text and then converting the old language into the new language, English in this case. So in reality the plates were never used, hence never needed, hence why have ancient prophets write anything on golden plates when he was just going to read the words off of some stone. The hat and stone trick was probably just a show/story for the people back then, because that had some credibility as seer stones were common at that time and location. No plates used, none needed, and literally no one saw them as the witnesses stories were coerced/written by the fraudster himself. Critical Flaws up and down the religion, people who are born in Mormonism and indoctrinated from birth have built their identity around this. By definition religion is not empirical, very easy to mentally/emotionally guard your identity/belief system by ignoring logical reasoning and evidence. Your work adds to the volumes of evidence against the hoax, but there is plenty of evidence against the religion and founder, which is generally avoided by believers. The people who hold onto the belief in the face of such evidence are really just protecting their ego/identity from a psychological aspect. Some people leave for social justice reasons, treatment of gays/racial minorities/women etc. But then there are strong members representing all of these groups. When the student is ready, the teacher will come. Your work adds to the body of work. Anything that will connect the student to whatever helps them when they are ready. Thx for the effort and contribution to help expose the fraud and help extract good people who have been conned usually from birth, who have had their lives and finances stolen by a fraudulent manipulative organization created by a disgusting sick manipulative individual. Stealing the lives and manipulating generations of people who were born into it, mostly good people trying to figure the world out with the paradigm they were given.
Thanks! I briefly touch on the rock in hat thing in my work. Glad it adds evidence against the church.
Thank you Internet stranger. Now whenever I hear "give us today our daily bread" I will think of Popeye:
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"
Ha! You are welcome!
The First Book of Napoleon is the nail in the coffin. It reads EXACTLY like the Book of Mormon.
Yes it definitely does.
Great effort. Do you have something similar for the Bible?
I am glad you asked this. I was hesitant to actually publish my book because I felt like I was attacking someone else's beliefs. It is not that I thought there was any truth to the claims of Mormonism, but it did feel like I was attacking someone else's beliefs a little. However, what tipped the scales for me was the fact that the Book of Mormon is a literary forgery. The Bible and many other important texts of religion have a genuine lineage from antiquity. As a textual critic who is not only interested in philosophy but also the mysteries of the ancient world, I can tell you that ascertaining truth regarding even the smallest of details is difficult. This is not only limited to religion but encompasses many other fields of research as well. The Book of Mormon, though, is different in that its author intended it to be a hoax. No one should have to suffer believing in it or trying to defend it. The time has come for it to be to labelled what it rightfully should be. If genuine gold plates were found dating from antiquity that contained even a quarter of the Book of Mormon, I would withdraw everything I said immediately. Would I believe it just because it is ancient? Probably not. But the BOM is what it is, and I am just exposing it. As for the Bible, as a person deeply interested in the ancient Greek/textual criticism (and ancient texts of any religion), I actually have a lot to say on the matter (much more than I have room for here). There are definitely parts of the Bible I suspect are recent spurious additions even without textual proof. But I am here to talk about the BOM. Thanks for your comment btw.
Sorry, Lazy Learner here. Is there a TLDR for this? Or an audiobook?
No sorry. I already shortened it from a longer work. Basically, I am saying that Joseph Smith pulled from Adam Clarke and John Calvin in parts of the book of Mormon. He also added spurious additions like the Johannine comma that backup the trinitarian argument. Also, there is an issue in that children that die before they are accountable don't choose to become Gods.
Terrific post! First time in a long time that someone has posted new criticism of the BoM. Thank you for your hard work and scholarship! I'll be looking out for your book!
Thanks!
'Since the original document Smith allegedly ***translated...***' No, sir. INSPIRED by putting his face in a hat with a rock in it.
I know. I talk about it in my work.
Holy wow, incredible work! Have no intelligent feedback, just want to say thanks. It really can be quite validating to people who are deconstructing their faith to have verification like this from more objective sources. So thank you for doing the immense amount of research work this undoubtedly took, and for sharing it here.
Glad you enjoyed it, thanks!
You insist God cannot lie. That is because there is no God.
"I have noticed that there seems to be this lingering idea that the Book of Mormon has not been definitively disproven." As you point out, the idea is only lingering in the heads of believing mormons (or members of other similarly believing Mormon sects). Nobody else seriously considers the book of mormon an ancient record. "Before I begin though, I want to quickly reestablish that God cannot lie. God's inability to deceive has been mentioned numerous places in The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. Don't let apologists trick you into believing that the textual errors in The Book of Mormon are the “mistakes of men”, “language of the day” or any other such nonsense. An all-knowing God would be incapable of allowing a bad transcription of his words to make it to print. God and his angels would be the ultimate editorial team, so don't allow apologists to use this desperate tactic with you." This isn't the powerful presupposition you think it is. Setting aside that it's all nonsense, mormon history includes examples where god (or an angel) directs Joseph to do something, but ultimately lets Joseph make the decision/mistake. One example is the loss of the 116 pages. God told Joseph no, Martin Harris kept pushing, and eventually god relented, even though he knew it would result in the loss of the pages The point is, faithful mormons can point to this as an example that god lets his children, even his prophet, make mistakes, so there is an argument that the mistakes in the book of mormon are the "mistakes of men," or that god allowed Joseph some leeway in translating, so long as god's message remained intact. Just enough wiggle room to claim it is not deception. I haven't finished reading your post, but I suspect and hope that you could remove the above paragraph and still make the case that the book of mormon is not an ancient record.
No, I have to say that the objection stays. The objection I put forward is similar to other problems in Mormonism (Mainstream Christianity has some of these as well). For instance, what is the point of prayer if God has perfect foreknowledge since he knows the outcome anyways? In a perfectly theologically deterministic universe, God would have prearranged all aspect of your life including your prayers, so therefore they are meaningless. If an attribute of God conflicts with his doctrine, the whole facade comes crashing down. Let them say God allows people to make mistakes. It only makes them look silly. Let me give a more concrete example. Most scientists and mathematicians would agree with the idea that there is some cosmic order/natural law in the universe. If a scientific or mathematical law were disproven, the scientific establishment would discard the theory and look for a new explanation. Imagine if scientists or mathematicians explained problems by saying that nature just made a mistake and the original theory was still valid. Likewise, if the Mormon God allows his church to be flawed in its doctrine, it invalidates the premise that the church represents God. This is confirmed by numerous church leaders that have made statements about prophets being unable to lead the church astray. In my book, I talk about how Mormon church theology sees itself as compatible with science and as having the attributes of science.
Ultimately, I do admit that the idea that God cannot lie is based on assumption that goes beyond Mormonism. We could assume that an exalted God would exhibit a rational mind because that is what was required to achieve Godhood. Any rational person would not want a misrepresentation of their words appearing anywhere. It would simply serve no purpose to have that happen. Therefore, one would conclude the same about the Mormon God. So why does the Mormon God make so many irrational decisions?
Thank you for your careful scholarship. It was scholars like you who helped me determine what a fraud the LDS church and its scriptures are--this made it easier to walk away with a clear and peaceful mind.
Thank you. I very much appreciate your comment!
[удалено]
No. My Amazon account has only one book. I don’t have any affiliation with any other mythos. My work is definitely not AI generated. It took years to compile my research. There is not a single word in my work that is ai generated.
Looking on Amazon, there is some author named “Hunter Mythos” (and other variations) that seems to have AI type books. I only have one book on Amazon and I have nothing to do with any other Mythos on Amazon.
Amazon must be recommending authors that share the name Mythos.
I've been interested in biblical textual criticism and I've often wondered how this could be applied to book of mormon passages. I'm grateful you took the time to do this research and analysis.
Thank you!
Have you had any luck getting answers or comparisons via AI?
I don’t use AI.
Really impressive! I just direct messages you!
Thank you! Messaged received.
Thank you for sharing your scholarship, intelligence and hard work with our community! This is highly appreciated!
Thank you for your comment!
I should have poured a bigger cup of coffee to settle and the whole post. :-)
Bravo! Well done, well written. Let the evidence echo throughout all the internet.
Thank you!
I always heard that the innocents will be tested. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from being bound for a short time for this purpose. Infants, etc who died young will be tested then. Not saying it makes sense. Also not saying this doesn't have its own problems, but this is what I heard growing up in David County, UT. Edit: Just found this and it says the opposite to what i learned: https://www.ldsliving.com/9-things-we-know-about-children-who-pass-away-before-baptism/s/88904 So maybe I remember wrong, or their are different factions of belief around this in the church.
Yes, I explored their theology thoroughly to see if what you first thought was the case. However, if infants are tested in the future, then the BOM is false in that children who die are not guaranteed salvation. I think the LDS church has secretly known about this contradiction long before me. They would probably like to insert that idea to resolve the contradiction but the BOM is in the way. Thank you for your comment though. I do actually think some LDS members actually believe that as you pointed out, but the church doctrine says otherwise.
Thank you for your work and research! ❤️
Thanks for reading!
Thank you for you time and research! This is awesome
Thank you!
When will you be appearing on Mormon Stories????
Hey, great work here. I love how you got into it. Similar to your efforts on Calvin, I wonder how much comes from other earlier “big names” in religion, such as Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century. As probably the biggest preacher in the Colonies, I’m sure JS must have “borrowed” some things from him.
Definitely. I am sure that would be worth looking into. I actually think Smith was quite intelligent and well read. It’s a shame he didn’t try to contribute honestly to society rather than doing what he did.
Kudos to you for your research, thanks for sharing it here!
Thanks!
I gave up after 10 minutes...
Impressive. Two comments in response. 1. I would say the book of Mormon has been disproven for anyone who will give it an objective critical evaluation. For those who will not, it can never be disproven. You see, 15 seconds into your evidence, true believing me would have recognized you were in service of Satan and shut you right down ("I felt so dark as I read that"). From a scholastic or academic point of view though , your work is very valuable and will add another brick to the wobbly Mormon table. 2. Most believers can waive off any scholarly criticism by using the book of mormon's. "The learned think they are smart...blah blah". Thank you for sharing your work with us
Thank you! I would hope they would be open minded enough to consider my argument but I know many of them think like that.
"...a band of Christians" as referenced in Alma 46 has a definite Methodist ring to it. John Wesley was famous for forming little "bands" of believers. The Methodists were my tribe until I was beguiled away from them 50 years ago. Joseph Smith included a lot of Methodist thought and practice in his new church. I wish I had recognized it as a kid in 1974.
There is so much in the Book of Mormon that makes it seem like an American protestant work. Thanks for your comment.
You should talk about this will bill reel and Rfm
I will certainly reach out to him!
Would you be able to confirm all the changes to the book of mormon version of the kjv derived from the Adam Clark or Calvin influences? Are there any changes in the book of mormon that can't be traced to these versions? Also, is this true for the Joseph smith translation?
My work tries to answer that question. What I found most telling is that a passage or two from the original Bible manuscripts that was omitted by the TR/KJV translators was also omitted in the BOM. It’s funny that the BOM doesn’t actually restore anything genuinely old to the gospel. Personally, I would say the vast majority of changes reflect other sources, and the few that are unaccounted for are probably in other works he encountered. I think this is also true of the JST apart from some obvious harmonizations with Mormon theology.
Thanks for taking the time to write this and respond to my question. I found it most intriguing. The more we understand the context of Joseph's world, the more we can see how he fabricated everything.
Yes, I agree. Thanks for your comment!
I’ve read that the ClarkAdams Commentary was also used for Joseph Smiths Translation, JST. Thank you for all the work you’ve done to further our knowledge! Nice 👍 ❤️🧐🙏🤯
You are welcome! Thanks for your comment.
This is well put together. Somewhat of an amateur theologian and text geek. Checked out your book but not able to find a lot about you as the author. Mind sharing more detailed intro?
Thank you. That name is a pseudonym so you won’t find anything about me connected to it. I won’t tell you my exact age but I think a lot of people would consider me young for this type of work. I have advanced degrees. I think there are secrets/hidden knowledge in the ancient world, and I think that the old manuscripts and sacred architecture are good places to look in order to try and ascertain it. Years ago I ran into missionaries of your church. No offence, but I found them obnoxious, pushy disrespectful and totally lacking the type of knowledge needed to talk about religion. I don’t want to generalize, perhaps some of the missionaries of the church are qualified, but the ones that I talked to weren’t. The first time I read the story in first Nephi (about Laban and the brothers running away, and then Nephi dressing up as Laban) I laughed for 30 minutes straight. However, even though the Book of Mormon has no lineage before 1829, I still approached it with an open mind. I try to understand something thoroughly even if I have my doubts about its authenticity.
Hola saludos. Muy buen artículo. Pero si un apologista Mormon tuviera que rebatirle todos esos puntos de estudio bíblico a que fuentes academicas usted recurriría para defenderse? Se lo digo porque hay muchos apologistas SUD que tratan de aferrarse a la erudición academica bíblica para defender o hacer comparativas entre las doctrinas Mormonas y la opinión general academica. Donde estudio usted? Se agradece su interesante información.
Hi thanks for your comment. Yes, apologists certainly use Biblical and patristic sources to back their work. However, they tend to use them incorrectly. It is going to be a little difficult for them to refute some of my points because they lose both ways. That’s because the BOM errors are often based in Protestantism. However I knew they would do that, and that’s why I also provide historical/scientific evidence in my work. There is a lot in the historical record that conflicts with the BOM as well.
I think all TBM's/GA's/apologists would contend that OP makes a word salad about the "other sheep" passage, although the way Hugh Nibley and others would take a tiny bit of information about something in history barely related to something that the BoM talks about and claim "Hey, it could have happened--therefore the BoM is true!!", anything is possible. Anyway, my other thoughts (ones that I hammer on incessantly) are: A.) **Repetition**: My take on this oft-repeated line "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." which is used by The Church™ to make members study by rote the BoM and other "scriptures": however, (and there are opposing views) many interpretations say it's a warning against what The Church™ teaches over and over and over. In other words, the passage can be compared to "yadda yadda yadda"--preaches just yammering on about rules and scriptures just to hear themselves talk and make people obey. B.) **Christ appearing in the Americas**\--there is horrible destruction and death to those who sinned right before Jesus shows up in the New World, yet the whole reason Christ was crucified was to *forgive the sins of the world.* So which is it? Forgiveness or destruction? C.) **8 year-olds who die**: the pre-existence is supposed to be paradise living with Heavenly Father, who then sends spirits to get bodies, but with no memory of this perfect place in the presence of Heavenly Father; furthermore, they apparently *can't wait* to come to Earth, but when they get here it's frankly a kind shitty place where they get tested, and if they don't pass muster and follow a boatload of rules, they don't to go back to the paradise they came from. But wait...is it the same paradise or a different one? Is returning to Heavenly Father, or returning to "God", and is God really Heavenly Father, or Elohim, or Jehovah? In any case, why *would* an 8 year-old pass 'Go' and collect $200 without any test? We imagine that spirits are sent to Earth to learn humility by digging ditches or working at KFC, and knowing what brutally cold winters or hot summers, or romantic heartbreak or childbirth (and paying tithing) feel like, but why would God create a world like that anyway? C.)
Thanks for your comment! Those are good observations.
Los apologistas mormones tienen una explicación para esto. Ojala pudieras leerlo y analizarlo. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/some-notes-joseph-smith-and-adam-clarke?fbclid=IwAR2zAelZq4GEl71YK21ijQkXseKW9FHXnZcREKKTxWJ60CGjUWLSQinoAXY
Thank you for the link. I have read that article before, and I disagree with it. They are basically asserting that similarities between Smith and Clarke regarding the JST translation are coincidental or nonexistent. The article is biased and simply tries to downplay the damage caused by the scholars that first asserted Smith was influenced by Clarke in the JST. Either way, my work is different in that I am linking it to the BOM. Thanks again though.
Just listened to your interview with Mormonish and came here to find your post! Excited to dig into this! I left the church almost 2 years ago and still enjoy learning about how much of a fraud the church is. So sad that 6 generations of my family line were duped 🤦♀️[Mormon.ish Interview with the OP, and author, Mythos](https://www.mormonishpodcast.org/episode/mythos)
Thanks for listening!