Criticism of Mormon sacred texts

There are several theories as to the origin of the Book of Mormon. Most adherents of Mormonism view the book as a work of inspired scripture. The most common theory accepted by adherents is that promoted by Joseph Smith, who said he translated the work from an ancient set of golden plates inscribed by prophets. Smith said he discovered these near his home in Palmyra, New York, in the 1820s after being told to go there by the angel Moroni and translated them "by the gift and power of God". Besides Smith himself, there were 11 witnesses who said they physically saw the plates in 1829 (three stating they were visited by an angel as well). Several other witnesses, some of them friendly to Smith and some hostile, observed him dictating the text that eventually became the Book of Mormon.

Nevertheless, critics have explored a number of issues, including (1) whether Smith actually had golden plates, or whether the text of the Book of Mormon originated in his mind or through inspiration; (2) whether it was Smith himself who composed the book's text, or whether an associate of Smith's such as Oliver Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon could have composed the text; and (3) whether the book was based on a prior work such as the View of the Hebrews, the Spalding Manuscript, or the Bible.

A painting of Joseph Smith Jr. receiving the golden plates from the angel Moroni.

Two separate sets of witnesses—a set of three and a set of eight—testified as having seen the golden plates, the record from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Critics, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner and the Institute for Religious Research (IRR), note several pieces of evidence that, they argue, call into question the authenticity of the experience. These include letters and affidavits in which Martin Harris stated that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates, and that his own witness was more spiritual than physical. Additionally, each of the Three Witnesses (Harris, Cowdery, and David Whitmer) left the church during Smith's lifetime and considered Smith to have been a fallen prophet. Harris[1] and Cowdery[2] later returned to the church. However, the IRR disputes the sincerity of their conversion and return.[3]

Apologists note that the witnesses in most cases affirmed their witness until their death, and claim that the aforementioned affidavits and letters are either fraudulent, or otherwise not reliable. In 1881, Whitmer, the one witness who never returned to the church, issued an affidavit reaffirming his testimony of the experience.[4]

Richard Abanes, the Tanners, and others state that Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon, and that it is therefore not divinely inspired.[5][6][7] Alleged sources include View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (published 1823, seven years before the Book of Mormon); The Wonders of Nature by Josiah Priest (published in 1826, four years before the Book of Mormon); the Bible; and the Apocrypha. LDS Church leaders Bruce R. McConkie and Spencer W. Kimball counter that repetition from previous texts validates the Book of Mormon because it shows God's consistency and equal revelation to all peoples and fulfills prophecy. Moreover, they argue that warnings need be repeated in the face of ageless problems.[8][9][10]

The Book of Mormon purports to be a record of an ancient Israelite migration to the New World. The question of whether it is an actual historical work or a work of fiction has long been a source of contention between members of the Latter Day Saint movement and non-members. For most adherents of the movement, Book of Mormon historicity is a matter of faith. For others, its historicity is not accepted, and specific claims made in the Book of Mormon have been questioned from a number of different perspectives. Critics of the historical and scientific claims of the Book of Mormon tend to focus on four main areas:

• The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.[11]
• Anachronistic references to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book of Mormon that archaeological or scientific studies have found no evidence of in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America. Items typically listed include cattle,[12] horses,[13] asses,[13] oxen,[13] sheep, swine, goats,[13] elephants,[14] wheat, steel,[15] brass, chains, iron, scimitars, and chariots.[16]
• The lack of linguistic connection between any Native American languages and Near Eastern languages.[17]
• The lack of current DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.[18]

Within the Latter Day Saint movement, there have been many apologetical counter claims attempting to reconcile these apparent discrepancies. Among those apologetic groups, a great deal of research has been done by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR), in an attempt to either prove the veracity of Book of Mormon claims, or to counter arguments critical to its historicity.

Since the introduction of the Book of Mormon in 1830, both Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists have studied its claims in reference to known archaeological evidence. Latter Day Saints generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes historical events; however, the existence of the civilizations and people described in the Book of Mormon is not accepted by mainstream historians or archaeologists.

The Book of Mormon contains an account of peoples who, in succeeding groups between 2500 BC [19] and 600 BC, traveled from the Middle East and settled in the Americas. Evangelical lecturer and journalist Richard Abanes and author David Persuitte argue that aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative (such as the existence of horses, steel, and chariots in pre-Columbian America) are not supported by mainstream archaeology.[20][21][22] Apologist Michael R. Ash, of FAIR, counters that obtaining archaeological evidence to prove or disprove specific ancient events is difficult.[23] Joseph Allen, along with other LDS scholars, have found sites in Mesoamerica that they believe may represent ancient Book of Mormon cities.[24] John L. Sorenson does not dispute that other peoples may have been present in the Americas concurrent with Book of Mormon peoples (see limited geography model).[25]

A traditional Mormon hypothesis of the origin of Native Americans is that they are descended solely from Hebrews in Jerusalem. Scientist Yaakov Kleiman, Mormon anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy, and ex-Mormon molecular biologist Simon Southerton argue that this hypothesis is inconsistent with recent genetic findings,[26][27][28] which show the genetic origins of Native Americans to be in Central Asia, possibly near the Altay Mountains. FARMS counters that testing and drawing generalizations from this hypothesis alone is an overly simplistic approach, and that the resulting conclusions would not stand up under peer review.[29] In addition, the traditional Mormon hypothesis under test may itself be based on assumptions unsupported by the Book of Mormon narrative (see limited geography model).

Writing in FARMS, apologist David A. McClellan concludes it is not probable that "the genetic signature of a small migrating family from 2,600 years ago" can be recovered.[30]

Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that the Book of Mormon's use of certain linguistic anachronisms (such as the Americanized name "Sam"[31] and the French word "adieu"[32]) provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith, rather than divinely inspired.[33] [34] In addition, Richard Abanes argues that because the first edition of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), the book was therefore fabricated by Smith and not divinely inspired.[35]

Sometime in 1856, Theodule Deveria, an Egyptologist at the Louvre, had the opportunity to examine the facsimiles published as part of the Book of Abraham.[43] His interpretation, juxtaposed with Smith's interpretation, was published in T. B. H. Stenhouse's book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons in 1873.[44] Additionally, later in 1912, Reverend Franklin S. Spalding sent copies of the three facsimiles to eight Egyptologists and Semitists soliciting their interpretation of the facsimiles, the results of which were published in Spalding's work Joseph Smith, Jr. As a Translator. Deveria, and each of the eight scholars immediately recognized the facsimiles as portions of ordinary funerary documents, and some harshly condemned Smith's interpretation, as shown below:

Egyptologist Dr. James H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago noted:

these three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the "Pearl of Great Price" depict the most common objects in the Mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.[45]

Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote: "It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"[46]

Dr. A. H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology: "It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No. 3] into a king and Osiris into Abraham."[47]