Kingdom Of The Cults - Walter Martin - Mormonism. Part 2

 Purpose of the Book of Mormon

The purpose of the Book of Mormon and its mission generally eludes Christian theologians, archaeologists, and students of anthropology because of the many difficulties that the book introduces in the light of already established facts. But the following explanation of the purpose of the book ought to be considered.

It is a principle of divine and civil law that, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses

every word shall be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). The Bible, its history of the

dealings and providences of God with man upon the Eastern continent, is one witness for

the truth. The Book of Mormon is another witness to the same effect. It recites the

providences of God in the basic and vastly important matter of redemption, as also in

general in the laws of nature, and indicates that such provisions were not limited, not

confined to the Eastern world, “God so loved the world” (John 3:16), not a mere portion

of it, that he likewise ministered in behalf of the race in the great Western continent.

Being the seat of mighty civilizations, it was entitled to and partook of the ministrations

of the Father of the race.

The stated purpose of the Book of Mormon (in its introduction) is universal: to

witness to the world the truth and divinity of Jesus Christ, and his mission of salvation

through the gospel He taught. Its witness is for Jew and Gentile. The house of Israel

rejected its Messiah, and in consequence was rejected, scattered, and the government

overthrown. The gospel refused by them was then preached to the Gentiles. Israel has

ever since remained in unbelief in Christ and without the ministration of inspired men.

Bible prophecy frequently declares its restoration in the latter days to divine favor, the

gathering of Israel, and their permanent establishment in their ancient homeland of

Israel. 

The sealed book, the Book of Mormon, is predicted by Bible prophecy and by its

own declarations to be a confirming, additional revelation from God of the Messiahship

of Jesus Christ and of the covenants made with their fathers. It repeatedly predicts

regathering, restoration, and other manifold blessings to Israel. The God of Israel is to

make a “new covenant” with that people—not the old Mosaic covenant, but another and

later one, by which they are to be reinstated as a nation in their holy land. (See also

Jeremiah 31:34; Ezekiel 20:33–38, etc., Bible predictions to the same effect.) The Book

of Mormon interprets Old Testament prophecy to that effect, as it recites predictions of

its inspired men. It claims to be part of the new covenant to Israel.

It claims to be the sealed book of Isaiah, chapter 29, which it quotes and interprets. It

recites that as a result of its revealment, Israel would come to an understanding of the

Christ message of salvation; that they would no longer fear but be secured and greatly

blessed by divine favor; that the coming forth of its record would be followed by

physical blessing upon Israel to its redemption from sterility to fertility, and thus made

capable of maintaining that nation as in ancient times. It is a fact that since the

appearance of the book that land has been favored. It produces abundantly. The Jews are

now permitted to return and establish cities and industrial and agricultural units. Many

Jews, according to predictions of the book, are beginning to believe in Christ.

Proponents of the book state that with such predictions fulfilled it is now too late for any

similar fulfillment by another record.

The book declares also that the remnants of the former inhabitants of ancient

America, scattered throughout North, Central, and South America—the Indian

populations—will by means of the coming to light of the record of their fathers be

converted to the faith and share in the covenants made with their progenitors. It indicates

their emergence from primitive conditions to enlightenment. It declares that the Gentile

nations occupying their lands would favor their emancipation from degenerate

conditions. This is part of the purpose of the book.

The Gospel of John 10:16 contains a statement of Jesus Christ quoted by believers in

the divinity of the Book of Mormon. It reads, “And other sheep I have, which are not of

this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one

fold, and one shepherd.” Citing also that Christ declared these words: “I am not sent but

unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), they believe that since Jesus

Christ, according to the record, never appeared to the Gentiles, and “salvation is of the

Jews,” or Israel (John 4:22), the promise concerning “other sheep” was realized by the

appearance of Christ to the Nephites.

For the Mormons, then, the Bible predicts the Book of Mormon; the Book of Mormon interprets Old Testament prophecy and it claims to be part of the new covenant to Israel. It is also supposed to be “another witness” to the truth of the Christian gospel. It is unfortunate for the Mormons that this witness is so often found in conflict with the biblical revelation, as we shall see. It is at the very least a gross assumption, unjustified by any of the internal evidence of the book or the testimony of science and history, that the Book of Mormon should be considered “part of the new covenant” in any sense.

Scientific Evidence Against the Book of Mormon

In an attempt to validate and justify the claims of the Book of Mormon, the highest authority in Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., the Mormon prophet, related an event which, if true, would add significant weight to some of the Mormon claims for their sacred book. Fortunately, it is a fact on which a good deal of evidence can be brought to bear.

Smith put forth his claim in the book Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:62–64, 1982 edition), and it is worthwhile to examine it:

I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number

of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them. … Mr.

Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and

started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the

characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after

his return, which was as follows: “I went to the city of New York, and presented the

characters that had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles

Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that

the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the

Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they

were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters.”

According to Joseph Smith, then, Martin Harris, his colleague, obtained from the learned Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University a validation of Smith’s translation of the reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic characters found on the plates that Moroni made available to him. The difficulty with Smith’s statement is that Professor Anthon never said any such thing, and fortunately he went on record in a lengthy letter to Mr. E. D. Howe, a contemporary of Joseph Smith who did one of the most thorough jobs of research on the Mormon prophet and the origins of Mormonism extant.

Upon learning of Smith’s claim concerning Professor Anthon, Mr. Howe wrote him at Columbia.

Professor Anthon’s letter reproduced here from Howe’s own collection is a classic piece of evidence the Mormons would like very much to see forgotten.

New York, N.Y.

Feb. 17, 1834

Mr. E. D. Howe

Painsville, Ohio

Dear Sir:

I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a

reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be

“reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false.6-14 Some years ago, a plain and

apparently simplehearted farmer called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our

city, now deceased, requesting me to decipher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer

would hand me, and which Dr. Mitchell confessed he had been unable to understand.

Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a

trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person who brought it how he obtained the

writing he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, [he gave] the following account: A

“gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a

book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of

New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These

spectacles were so large that if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes

would have to be turned toward one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question

being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the

plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand

their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at the time to a young man,

who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young

man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus

concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one

of the glasses, deciphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of

them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain to those who stood on the outside.

Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been deciphered “by the gift of

God.” Everything, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer

added that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money toward the publication of

the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an

entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations,

that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who

wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to

come to New York and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper

which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of

the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with

the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and,

instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as a

part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to

him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing,

which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with

him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked

characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who

had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew

letters, crosses and nourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were

arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a

circle, divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and

evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a

way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the

contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the

subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper

contained anything else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same

farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered

it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with

me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I

adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practiced upon him,

and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a

trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the

trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On

my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me

that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied

that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that

nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of the rogues. He then left me.

I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of

Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately,

should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.

Yours respectfully,

Charles Anthon, LL.D.

Columbia University

Professor Anthon’s letter is both revealing and devastating where Smith’s and Harris’ veracity are concerned. We might also raise the question as to how Professor Anthon could say that the characters shown to him by Martin Harris and authorized by Joseph Smith as part of the material copied from the revelation of the Book of Mormon were “Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic” when the Book of Mormon itself declares that the characters were “reformed Egyptian,” the language of the Nephites.

Since the language of the Book of Mormon was known to “none other people,” how would it be conceivably possible for Professor Anthon to have testified as to the accuracy of Smith’s translation?

To this date, no one has ever been able to find even the slightest trace of the language known as “reformed Egyptian”; and all reputable linguists who have examined the evidence put forth by the Mormons have rejected them as mythical.

Archaeological Evidence

The Book of Mormon purports to portray the rise and development of two great civilizations. As to just how great these civilizations were, some excerpts from the book itself adequately illustrate.

“The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea” (Mormon 1:7).

“…fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manners of tools ” (Jarom 1:8; 2 Nephi 5:15).

“…grain … silks … cattle … oxen … cows … sheep … swine … goats … horses … asses … elephants …” (See Ether 9:17–19).

“…did multiply and spread … began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Heleman 3:8).

“…had been slain … nearly two million” [Jaredites] (See Ether 15:2).

“…their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries ” (Heleman 3:14. See also 2 Nephi 5:15–16; Alma 16:13).

“…there were ten more who did fall … with their ten thousand each ” (See Mormon 6:10–15).

“…swords … cimeters … breastplates … arm-shields … shields … head-plates … armor” (See Alma 43:18–19; 3:5; Ether 15:15).

“…multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceeding rich ” (Jarom 1:8).

See 3 Nephi 8:9–10, 14; 9:4–6, 8: where cities and inhabitants were sunk in the depths of the sea and earth.

In addition to the foregoing statements from the Book of Mormon, which indicate the tremendous spread of the cultures of these races, there are numerous cities catalogued in the Book of Mormon, evidence that these were indeed mighty civilizations, which should, by all the laws of archaeological research into the culture of antiquity, have left vast amounts of “finds” to be evaluated. But such is not the case as we shall show. The Mormons have yet to explain the fact that leading archaeological researchers not only have repudiated the claims of the Book of Mormon as to the existence of these

civilizations, but have adduced considerable evidence to show the impossibility of the accounts given in the Mormon Bible.

The following letter was addressed to the Rev. R. Odell Brown, pastor of the Hillcrest Methodist Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia, an ardent student of Mormonism and its claims. Dr. Brown, in the course of his research, wrote to the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University in New York City. The answer he received is of great importance in establishing the fact that the Book of Mormon is neither accurate nor truthful where the sciences of archaeology and anthropology are concerned.

Dear Sir:

Pardon my delay in answering your letter of January 14, 1957. The question which

you ask concerning the Book of Mormon is one that comes up quite frequently. …

However, … I may say that I do not believe that there is a single thing of value

concerning the prehistory of the American Indian in the Book of Mormon and I believe

that the great majority of American archaeologists would agree with me. The book is

untrue biblically, historically, and scientifically.

Concerning Dr. Charles Anthon of Columbia University, I do not know who he is

and would certainly differ with his viewpoint, as the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) tell it.

What possible bearing Egyptian hieroglyphics would have on either the Book of Mormon

or the prehistory of the American Indian I do not know. … I am,

Very sincerely yours,

Wm. Duncan Strong (Signed)

The Smithsonian Institution in Washington has also added its voice against the archaeological claims of the Book of Mormon. Such a highly regarded scientific source the Mormons can ill afford to ignore.

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a

scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the

archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the Native American is basically Mongoloid, being most

closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Native Americans

came into the New World—probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the

Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age—in a continuing series of small migrations

beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the

East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America

around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they

reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts

with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little

significance for the development of Native American civilizations is the fact that none of

the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred

in the New World in Pre-Columbian times. Native Americans had no wheat, barley, oats,

millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and

horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all

these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters

spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for

occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was used in various locations

in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the

Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver,

copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years

before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have

been the result of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no

means certain that such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the

ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archaeology and no expert on New World prehistory has discovered or confirmed any relationship between

archaeological remains in Mexico and archaeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in

the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers,

magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by

reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown

to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492, except for a few Norse rune

stones which have been found in Greenland. (Revised, May 1980.)

From this evidence, it is clear that the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are imaginary, that elephants never existed on this continent, and that the metals described in the Book of Mormon have never been found in any of the areas of contemporary civilizations of the New World. This is not a theologian attempting to discredit the Mormons on the basis of their theology, but recognized archaeological experts challenging the Book of Mormon on the basis of the fact that its accounts are not in keeping with the findings of science. Mormon missionaries are generally reluctant to discuss these areas when the evidence is well known, but it is evidence, and from the most authoritative sources.

One of the most damaging claims against the archaeology of the Book of Mormon was the

publication of former Brigham Young University professor Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s paper written in 1975. Ferguson founded the Department of Archaeology (later renamed Anthropology) at BYU for the sole purpose of discovering proofs of the Book of Mormon. After twenty-five years of dedicated archaeological research, the department had nothing at all to back up the flora, fauna, topography, geography, peoples, coins, or settlements of the book and, in fact, he called the geography of the Book of Mormon “fictional.” In Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1988) the reader is treated to a wealth of insights into the sheer nonexistence of Book of Mormon

antiquities.

The Mongoloid Factor

It is one of the main contentions of Mormon theology that Native Americans are the descendants of the Lamanites and that they were of the Semitic race; in fact, of Jewish origin. As we have seen, this claim is extensive in Mormon literature, and if evidence could be adduced to show that the Native American could not possibly be of Semitic extraction, the entire story of Nephi and his trip to America in 600 B.C. would be proven false.

It is, therefore, of considerable value to learn that in the findings compiled both by anthropologists and those who specialize in genetics that the various physical factors of the Mediterranean races from which the Jewish or Semitic race spring bear little or no resemblance to those of the Native American.

Genotypically, there is therefore little if any correlation, and phenotypically speaking, Native Americans are considered to be Mongoloid in extraction, not Mediterranean Caucasoids.

Now, if the Lamanites, as the Book of Mormon claims, were the descendants of Nephi, who was a Jew of the Mediterranean Caucasoid type, then their descendants, Native Americans, would by necessity have the same blood factor genotypically, and phenotypic or apparent characteristics would be the same. But this is not at all the case. Instead, the Native American, so say anthropologists, is not of Semitic extraction and has the definite phenotypical characteristic of a Mongoloid. A thorough study of anthropology and such writers as W. C. Boyd (The Contributions of Genetics to Anthropology) and Bentley Glass, the gifted geneticist of Johns Hopkins University, reveals that Mormon findings based upon the Book of Mormon are out of harmony with the findings of geneticists and anthropologists.

There simply is no foundation for the postulation that the Native American (Lamanites, according to the Mormons) is in any way related to the race to which Nephi (a Semite) allegedly belonged.

Corrections, Contradictions, and Errors

There is a great wealth of information concerning the material contained in the Book of Mormon and the various plagiarisms, anachronisms, false prophecies, and other unfortunate practices connected with it. At best we can give but a condensation of that which has been most thoroughly documented.

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the first edition has undergone extensive “correction” in order to present it in its current form. Some of these “corrections” should be noted.

The former major revision of the Book of Mormon was in 1920. That standard edition is still found in many public libraries and in millions of homes. In the latest revision, 1981, a subtitle was added to the cover: “Another Testament of Jesus Christ,” and no less than 100 verses were changed without consulting the missing golden plates. A note closing the introduction to the 1981 edition says, “Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the prophet Joseph Smith.” Without blushing, the Mormon

Church boldly asserts the unfounded claim that the prepublication manuscripts agree with their most recent changes. Our access to the handwritten copies of the original Book of Mormon deny such a claim and proves once again that the Mormon Church will sacrifice truth for the sake of public relations.

1. In Mosiah 21:28, it is declared that “King Mosiah had a gift from God”; but in the original edition of the book, the name of the king was Benjamin—an oversight that thoughtful Mormon scribes corrected. This is not, of course, a typographical error, as there is little resemblance between the names Benjamin and Mosiah; rather, it appears that either God made a mistake when He inspired the record or Joseph made a mistake when he translated it. But the Mormons will admit to neither, so they are stuck, so to speak, with the contradiction.

2. When compared with the 1830 edition, 1 Nephi 19:16–20 reveals more than twenty changes in the “inspired Book of Mormon,” words having been dropped, spelling corrected, and words and phraseology added and turned about. This is a strange way to treat an inspired revelation from God.

3. In Alma 28:14–29:11, more than eighteen changes may be counted from the original edition. On page 303, the phrase, “Yea, decree unto them that decrees which are unalterable,” was dropped in later editions, but strangely reappeared in 1981. (See Alma 29:4.)

4. On page 25 of the 1830 edition, the Book of Mormon declares:

“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.”

Yet in 1 Nephi 11:21, the later editions of the book read: “And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the son of the eternal Father.”

5. The Roman Catholic Church should be delighted with page 25 of the original edition of the Book of Mormon, which confirms one of their dogmas, namely, that Mary is the mother of God. “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God.”

Noting this unfortunate lapse into Romanistic theology, Joseph Smith and his considerate editors changed 1 Nephi 11:18 (as well as 1 Nephi 11:21, 32; 13:40), so that it now reads:

“Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God.”

From the above, which are only a handful of examples from the approximately 4,000 word changes to be found in the Book of Mormon, the reader can readily see that it in no sense can be accepted as the Word of God. The Scripture says, “The word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Peter 1:25); and our Savior declared, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

The record of the Scriptures rings true. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is patently false in far too many instances to be considered coincidence.

Added to the evidence of various revisions, the Book of Mormon also contains plagiarisms from the King James Bible, anachronisms, false prophecies, and errors of fact that cannot be dismissed. Some of these bear repetition, though they are well known to students of Mormonism.

The testimony of the three witnesses, which appear at the front of the Book of Mormon (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) declares that “An angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engraving thereon. ”

It is quite noteworthy that Martin Harris denied that he had actually seen the plates with his “naked eyes.” In fact, when pressed, he stated, “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye” (Recollections of John H. Gilbert, 1892, Typescript, BYU, 5–6).

The Mormons are loath to admit that all three of these witnesses later apostatized from the Mormon faith and were described in most unflattering terms (“counterfeiters, thieves, [and] liars”) by their Mormon contemporaries (cf. Senate Document 189, February 15, 1841, 6–9).

A careful check of early Mormon literature also reveals that Joseph Smith wrote prophecies and articles against the character of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, which in itself renders their testimony suspect (cf. Doctrine and Covenants, 3:12; 10:7; History of the Church; 3:228, 3:232).

Mormons try to cover this historical predicament by saying that two of the three witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were rebaptized into Mormonism. What they fail to reveal is more significant: The Times and Seasons (2:482) published that Oliver Cowdery denied his Book of Mormon testimony. He spent several years as a baptized Methodist before his rebaptism into Mormonism.

Martin Harris, likewise, has suspicious circumstances surrounding his rebaptism. He denied the teachings of Brigham Young after rebaptism and was banned from preaching by Young because of their differences. David Whitmer changed the details of his testimony concerning the angel with the golden plates to say that it was a vision and not an actual visitation by an angelic person (An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 32). Certainly testimony from such unstable personalities is dubious at best.

Plagiarisms—The King James Version

A careful examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that it contains thousands of words from the King James Bible. In fact, verbatim quotations, some of considerable length, have caused the Mormons no end of embarrassment for many years.

The comparisons of Moroni 10 with 1 Corinthians 12:1–11; 2 Nephi 14 with Isaiah 4; and 2 Nephi 12 with Isaiah 2 reveal that Joseph Smith made free use of his Bible to supplement the alleged revelation of the golden plates. The book of Mosiah, chapter 14, in the Book of Mormon, is a reproduction of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah the prophet, and 3 Nephi 13 copies Matthew 6 almost word-for-word.

There are other instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible including paraphrases of certain verses. One of these verses (1 John 5:7) is reproduced in 3 Nephi 11:27. The only difficulty with the paraphrase here is that the text is considered by scholars to be an interpolation missing from all the major manuscripts of the New Testament, but present in the King James Bible, from which Smith paraphrased it not knowing the difference.

Another example of this type of error is found in 3 Nephi 11:33–34, and is almost a direct quotation from Mark 16:16, a passage regarded by many New Testament Greek scholars as one of three possible endings to that gospel. But Joseph Smith was not aware of this, so he even copied in translational variations, another proof that neither he nor the alleged golden plates were inspired of God.

Two further instances of plagiarisms from the King James Bible that have backfired on the Mormons are worth noting.

In the third chapter of the book of Acts, Peter’s classic sermon at Pentecost paraphrases

Deuteronomy 18:15–19. While in the process of writing 3 Nephi, Joseph Smith puts Peter’s paraphrase in the mouth of Christ when the Savior was allegedly preaching to the Nephites. The prophet overlooked the fact that at the time that Christ was allegedly preaching His sermon, the sermon itself had not yet been preached by Peter.

In addition to this, 3 Nephi makes Christ out to be a liar, when in 20:23 Christ attributes Peter’s words to Moses as a direct quotation, when, as we have pointed out, Peter paraphrased the quotation from Moses (Acts 3:22–23); and the wording is quite different. But Joseph did not check far enough, hence this glaring error.

Secondly, the Book of Mormon follows the error of the King James translation that renders Isaiah 4:5, “For upon all the glory shall be a defense” (see 2 Nephi 14:5).

Modern translations of Isaiah point out that it should read “For over all the glory there will be a canopy,” not a defense. The Hebrew word chuppah does not mean defense but a protective curtain or canopy. Smith, of course, did not know this, nor did the King James translators from whose work he copied.

There are quite a number of other places where such errors appear, including Smith’s insistence in Abraham 1:20 that “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood,” when in reality the dictionary defines the meaning of the term Pharaoh as “a great house or palace.”

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders Isaiah 5:25, “And their corpses were 

as refuse in the midst of the streets,” correctly rendering the Hebrew suchah as “refuse,” not as “torn.” The King James Bible renders the passage “And their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets.” The Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 15:25) repeats the King James’ text word-for-word, including the error of mistranslating suchah, removing any claim that the Book of Mormon is to be taken seriously as reliable material.

Anachronisms and Contradictions

Not only does the Book of Mormon plagiarize heavily from the King James Bible, but it betrays a great lack of information and background on the subject of world history and the history of the Jewish people. The Jaredites apparently enjoyed glass windows in the miraculous barges in which they crossed the ocean; and “steel” and a “compass” were known to Nephi despite the fact that neither had been invented, demonstrating once again that Joseph Smith was a poor student of history and of Hebrew customs.

Laban, mentioned in one of the characters of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 4:9), makes use of a steel sword; and Nephi himself claims to have had a steel bow. The ancient Jaredites also had steel swords (Ether 7:9). The Mormons justify this by quoting Psalm 18:34 as a footnote to 1 Nephi 16:18 in the Book of Mormon, but modern translations of the Scriptures indicate that the word translated steel in the Old Testament (since steel was nonexistent) is more properly rendered bronze. Nahum 2:3, NASB, uses “steel” but it is taken from the Hebrew word paladah, probably meaning iron.

William Hamblin, in his preliminary report entitled Handheld Weapons in the Book of Mormon (1985), published by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.) uses the bronze argument as a possible justification for the rendering of steel in the Book of Mormon. He writes, “Another possibility is to equate this Jaredite steel with the ‘steel’ of the King James translation of the Old Testament, which actually refers to the Hebrew word for bronze.” The problem with using this explanation to protect the Book of Mormon is that it defies Mormon history. Remember, numerous contemporaries of Joseph Smith have claimed that Smith could not continue “translating” the gold

plates unless the scribe read each word back to him correctly. If the word steel in the Book of Mormon should really have been bronze, it undermines the LDS claim that the book was translated by the gift and power of God, since it shows that errors did creep into Joseph Smith’s translation.

Mormons sometimes attempt to defend Nephi’s possession of a not yet invented compass (known in the Book of Mormon as a Liahona) by the fact that Acts 28:13 states: “And from thence we fetched a compass.” Modern translations of the Scripture, however, refute this subterfuge by correctly rendering the passage: “And from there we made a circle.”

Added to the preceding anachronisms is the fact that the Book of Mormon not only contradicts the Bible, but contradicts other revelations purporting to come from the same God who inspired the Book of Mormon. The Bible declares that the Messiah of Israel was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and the gospel of Matthew (chap. 2, v. 1) records the fulfillment of this prophecy. But the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9, 10) states:

“…the son of God cometh upon the face of the earth. And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers. …”

The Book of Mormon describes Jerusalem as a city (1 Nephi 1:4) as was Bethlehem described as a separate town in the Bible. The contradiction is irreconcilable.

Another area of contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon concerns sin and Mormon baptism at eight years of age. Moroni 8:8 states the doctrine that “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me.” Anyone who thinks that children under age eight cannot sin has not visited the classrooms of today’s schools. The Mormon concept directly contradicts Psalm 51:5, which places sin at the point of conception. The book of Romans leaves no exemption to the sin and guilt that Adam passed on to all; no exceptions are made (Romans 5:12–15). Furthermore, it clearly states that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10–12).

There are also a number of instances where God did not agree with himself, if indeed it is supposed that He had anything to do with the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the other recorded utterances of Joseph Smith.

In the Book of Mormon, for instance, (3 Nephi 12:2; Moroni 8:11) the remission of sins is the accomplishment of baptism:

“Yea, blessed are they who shall … be baptized, for they shall … receive a remission of their sin.… Behold baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sin.” 

But in the Doctrine and Covenants (20:37), the direct opposite is stated:

“All those who humble themselves … and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.”

Mormon theologians conspicuously omit any serious discussion of the contradiction.

Joseph Smith did not limit his contradictions to baptism; indeed, polygamy is a classic example of some of his maneuvering.

“Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 132:34, 32).

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states:

“Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old … for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of woman” (Jacob 2:26–28).

It appears that Smith could manufacture revelations at will, depending upon his desires. In the last instance, his reputation and subsequent actions indicate that sex was the motivating factor.

A final example of the confusion generated between the Book of Mormon and other “inspired” revelations is found in this conflict between two works in the Pearl of Great Price: the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham.

“I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest” (Moses 2:1).

The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view and states:

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).

Just how it is possible to reconcile these two allegedly equal pronouncements from Mormon revelation escapes this author, and the Mormons themselves appear reluctant to furnish any concrete explanation.

The question of false prophecies in Mormonism has been handled adequately in a number of excellent volumes, but it should be pointed out that Joseph Smith drew heavily upon published articles both in newspapers and magazines. In fact, one of his famous prophecies concerning the Civil War is drawn chiefly from material already published at the time.

In the History of the Church, Volume 1, page 301, Joseph Smith states, “Appearances of troubles among the nations became more visible this season than they had previously been since the Church began her journey out of the wilderness. … The people of South Carolina, in convention assembled (in November), passed ordinances, declaring their state a free and independent nation.” From this we know that Smith could have been aware of South Carolina’s succession as early as November 1832. If not in November, he could have known about this from an article in the Boston Daily Advertiser & Patriot, December 10, 1832. This was a full fifteen days before Smith’s prophecy, and the Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde was in Boston that day.

Smith declared in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 87:

“At the rebellion of South Carolina … the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain … and then war shall be poured out upon all nations . And … slaves shall rise up against their masters … and that the remnants … shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.”

Though the Civil War did break out some years after Smith’s death in 1844, England did not become involved in any war against the United States. “All nations” were not involved in war as was prophesied. The slaves did not rise up against “their masters,” and the “remnants” who were Native Americans were themselves vexed by the Gentiles, being defeated in war and confined to reservations.

Prophet Smith was an extremely ineffective prophet here, as well as in Doctrine and Covenants 124:22-23, 59, when he prophesied that he would possess the house he built at Nauvoo “for ever and ever.”

The fact of the matter is that neither Joseph nor his seed “after him” lived from “generation to generation” in the Nauvoo house. According to The Comprehensive History of the Church 1:160, “The Nauvoo House was never completed; and after its unfinished walls had stood unprotected for a number of years and were crumbling to decay, they were taken down; the foundations were torn up and the excellent building stone of which they were constructed sold for use in other buildings in and about Nauvoo.” However, the LDS church has rebuilt the house in “Nauvoo” and offers it as a tourist attraction.

These and other instances indicate that Smith was not only a poor scribe but a false prophet, and his prophecy concerning the restoration of Israel to Palestine clearly reveals that he anticipated the millennium in his own lifetime, whereas in reality the prophecy of Ezekiel 37 began to be fulfilled in 1948, more than a hundred years after Smith’s death.

The question quite naturally arises in summing up the background of the Book of Mormon: Where did the book come from, since it obviously did not come from God? The answer to this has been propounded at great length by numerous students of Mormonism, particularly E. D. Howe, Pomeroy Tucker, and William A. Linn.

All the aforementioned concur that the Book of Mormon is probably an expansion upon the writings of Solomon Spaulding, a retired minister who was known to have written a number of “romances” with biblical backgrounds similar to those of the Book of Mormon. The Mormons delight to point out that one of Spaulding’s manuscripts, entitled “Manuscript Story,” was discovered in Hawaii more than 100 years ago, and it differed in many respects from the Book of Mormon.

But in his excellent volume The Book of Mormon, Dr. James D. Bales makes the following observation, which is of great importance and agrees in every detail with my research:

It has long been contended that there is a connection between the Book of Mormon

and one of Solomon Spaulding’s historical romances. The Latter-day Saints, of course,

deny such a connection.

What if the Latter-day Saints are right and there is no relationship between the Book

of Mormon and Spaulding’s writings? It simply means that those who so contend are

wrong, but it proves nothing with reference to the question as to whether or not the Book

of Mormon is of divine origin.

One could be wrong as to what man, or men, wrote the Book of Mormon, and still

know that it was not written by men inspired of God. One can easily prove that the Book

of Mormon is of human origin. And, after all, this is the main issue. The fundamental

issue is not what man or men wrote it, but whether it was written by men who were

guided by God. We know that men wrote it, and that these men, whoever they were, did

not have God’s guidance.

This may be illustrated by Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures—the

textbook of Christian Science churches. Mrs. Eddy claims to have been its author, under

God’s direction. There are others who claim she reworked and enlarged a manuscript of

Mr. Quimby and the evidence seems to prove that such is the case. But what if those

who so maintained failed to prove their case? Would that prove that it was inspired of

God? Not at all. It would prove only that Quimby’s manuscript had nothing to do with it.

But it would not prove that some other uninspired being did not write it. Regardless of

what human being or beings wrote Science and Health, it is of human, not divine origin.

Just so the Book of Mormon is of human origin and uninspired, even though it were

impossible to prove what particular man wrote it.

It has not been maintained that all the Book of Mormon was written by Spaulding.

Thus, it has not been claimed that the theological portions were put in by him. Those

portions bear the imprint of Smith, Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon (see the proof offered

in Shook’s The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, pages 126ff.). It is maintained,

however, that some things, including a great deal of Scripture, were added to one of

Spaulding’s manuscripts and that his work was thus transferred into the Book of Mormon

(see the testimony of John Spaulding, Solomon’s brother; Martha Spaulding, John’s

wife): They maintained that the historical portion was Spaulding’s. (E. D. Howe,

Mormonism Unveiled, 1834, 278ff; Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon,

94ff).

The Mormons contend that the discovery of one of Spaulding’s manuscripts

demonstrates that it was not the basis of the Book of Mormon.

“I will here state that the Spaulding manuscript was discovered in 1884, and is at present in the library of Oberlin College, Ohio. On examination it was found to bear no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon. The theory that Solomon Spaulding was

the author of the Book of Mormon should never be mentioned again—outside a museum.” (William A. Morton, op. cit., 6.)

There are three errors in the above paragraph: viz., that Spaulding wrote but one

manuscript; that the manuscript discovered in 1884 is the one that non-Mormons have

claimed constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon; that the manuscript in Oberlin

bears no resemblance whatever to the Book of Mormon.

(a) Spaulding wrote more than one manuscript. This was maintained by D. P.

Harlburt [Hurlbut] and Clark Braden before the Honolulu manuscript was found

(Charles A. Shook, op. cit., 77). Spaulding’s daughter also testified that her father had

written “other romances.” (Elder George Reynolds, The Myth of the “Manuscript

Found,” Utah, 1833, 104). The present manuscript story looks like a rough, unfinished,

first draft.

(b) The manuscript found in Honolulu was called a “Manuscript Story” and not the

“Manuscript Found.” This Honolulu manuscript, The Manuscript Story, was in the

hands of anti Mormons in 1854 However they did not claim that it was the manuscript

which was the basis of the Book of Mormon. It was claimed that another manuscript of

Spaulding was the basis of the Book of Mormon, (Charles A. Shook, op. cit., 77, 15, 185.

The “Manuscript Found or Manuscript Stop” of the late Rev. Solomon Spaulding,

Lamoni, Iowa: Printed and Published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter Day Saints, 1885, 10).

(c) Although the Manuscript Story has not been regarded as the Manuscript Found,

which constituted the basis of the Book of Mormon, there is a great deal of resemblance

between the Manuscript and the Book of Mormon. These points of similarity can be

accounted for on the basis that the Manuscript Story was the first, and rough draft of one

of Spaulding’s works, which he reworked into the Manuscript Found.

“Howe, in 1854, published a fair synopsis of the Oberlin manuscript now at Oberlin

(Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288) and submitted the original to the witnesses who

testified to the many points of identity between Spaulding’s Manuscript Found and the

Book of Mormon. These witnesses then (in 1834) recognized the manuscript secured by

Harlburt and now at Oberlin as being one of Spaulding’s, but not the one that they

asserted was similar to the Book of Mormon. They further said that Spaulding had told

them that he had altered his original plan of writing by going farther back with his dates

and writing in the old scripture style, in order that his story might appear more ancient”

(Howe’s Mormonism Unveiled, 288; Theodore Schroeder, The Origin of the Book of

Mormon, Re-Examined in Its Relation to Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found,” 5).

This testimony is borne out by the fact that there are many points of similarity

between the manuscript in Oberlin College and the Book of Mormon.

It is fairly well established historically, then, that the Mormons have attempted to use a manuscript that is admittedly not the one from which Smith later copied and amplified the text of what is now known as the Book of Mormon as the basis for denying what eye witnesses have affirmed: that it was another Spaulding manuscript (Manuscript Found) that Smith drew upon to fabricate the Book of Mormon.

Dr. Bales is right when he states:

There are too many points of similarity for them to be without significance. Thus, the

internal evidence, combined with the testimony of witnesses, as presented in Howe’s

book and reproduced in Shook’s, shows that Spaulding revised the Manuscript Story.

The revision was known as the Manuscript Found, and it became the basis of the Book

of Mormon in at least its historical parts. Also its religious references furnished in part

the germs of the religious portions of the Book of Mormon.

However, in ordinary conversation, and in public debate on the Book of Mormon, it

is unnecessary to go into the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. The really

important issue is whether or not the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. There are some

Mormons who seem to think that if they can prove that Spaulding’s manuscript had

nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, they have made great progress toward proving

its divine origin. Such, however, is not the case. And one should show, from an appeal to

the Bible and to the Book of Mormon itself, that the Book of Mormon is not of divine

origin.

Let us not forget that the Manuscript Story itself contains at least seventy-five similarities to what is now the Book of Mormon and this is not to be easily explained away.

Finally, students of Mormonism must, in the last analysis, measure its content by that of Scripture, and when this is done it will be found that it does not “speak according to the law and the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20) and it is to be rejected as a counterfeit revelation doubly condemned by God himself (Galatians 1:8–9).

Joseph Smith, the author of this “revelation,” was perfectly described (as was his reward) in the Word of God almost thirty-three hundred years before he appeared. It would pay the Mormons to remember this message:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or

a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying,

“Let us go after other gods,” which thou hast not known, “and let us serve them;” thou

shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord

your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart

and with all your soul.

Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments,

and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath

spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of

Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way

which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away

from the midst of thee.

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy

bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, “Let us go

and serve other gods,” which thou has not known, thou, nor thy fathers; namely, of the

gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from

the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth:

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity

him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death,

and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust

thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the

house of bondage (Deuteronomy 13:1–10).

The Book of Mormon stands as a challenge to the Bible because it adds to the Word of God and to His one revelation, and the penalty for such action is as sobering as it is awesome:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If

any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written

in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God

shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the

things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus (Revelation 22:18–20).

It does no good for the Mormon to argue that Revelation 22:18–20 only pertains to the book of Revelation, since this serves only to prove our point. In the 1981 edition of the King James Version of the Bible, published by the Mormon Church, they have no less than forty-five verses footnoted in the book of Revelation where Joseph Smith added and took away from the “words of the book.” These footnotes are conveniently noted as JST (Joseph Smith Translation), beginning at Revelation 1:1 and ending at 19:21. He truly did what the apostle John warned against. Smith both added to and took away from the book of Revelation.

We need not make this a personal issue with the Mormons, but a historical and theological issue, which, for all the politeness and tact demonstrably possible, cannot conceal the depth of our disagreement. Even the famous “witnesses” to the veracity of the Book of Mormon are impugned by their own history. This does not speak well for the characters of those concerned or for their reliability as witnesses.

It was Joseph Smith who declared theological war on Christianity when he ascribed to God the statement that branded all Christian sects as “all wrong,” their creeds as “abominations,” and all Christians as “corrupt … having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (Joseph Smith— History 1:19).

The onus of hostility rests upon the Mormons, and their history of persecution (largely the result of their mouthing of Smith’s abusive accusations and their practice of polygamy) may be properly laid at their own doorstep. They were the initial antagonists, not the Christian church. We do not excuse those who persecuted the early Mormons, but in a great many instances those who were involved were provoked to action by Mormon excesses. (Note: An example of this would be the Mormon expulsion from Jackson County, Missouri.)

We may safely leave the Book of Mormon to the judgment of history and Mormon theology to the pronouncements of God’s immutable Word. But we must speak the truth about these things and keep foremost in our minds the fact that the sincerity of the Mormons in their faith is no justification for withholding just criticism of that faith or of its refuted source, the Book of Mormon and the “revelations” of Joseph Smith. The truth must be spoken in love, but it must be spoken.

The Theology of Mormonism

The Mormon church almost from its inception has claimed what no other church today claims to possess: the priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek.

The Mormons maintain that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic priesthood from the hand of John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and that “the Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery through the ministration of Peter, James, and John, shortly after the conferring of the Aaronic order.”

In the theology of Mormonism, both the Melchizedek and Aaronic orders are considered to be but one priesthood “without beginning of days or end of years” (Doctrine and Covenants, 84:17), and through the authority of this priesthood alone, they maintain, men speak and act in the name of the Lord for the salvation of humanity. In order that this may be clearly understood, the following quotation from the leading Mormon volume on the subject of the priesthood must be considered:

This authoritative Priesthood is designed to assist men in all of life’s endeavors, both

temporal and spiritual. Consequently, there are divisions or offices of the Priesthood,

each charged with a definite duty, fitting a special human need.

The prophet Joseph Smith once said that all Priesthood is Melchizedek. That is to say

that the Melchizedek Priesthood embraces all offices and authorities in the Priesthood.

This is clearly stated in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 107, Verse 5: “All other

authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this (i.e., Melchizedek)

Priesthood.”

There are two Priesthoods spoken of in the Scriptures, viz., the Melchizedek and the

Aaronic or Levitical. Although there are two Priesthoods, yet the Melchizedek

Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood; and is the grand head, and

holds the highest authority that pertains to the Priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom

of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is the channel

through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation, and every important matter

is revealed from heaven.

The Mormon concept of the priesthood holds that God has placed in that church presidents, apostles, high priests, seventies, elders; and that the various offices all share specific authorities.

The president of the church, they maintain, “may hold and dispense the powers of the administrative responsibilities of that office, the power of the Priesthood is decentralized: first, according to offices and the jurisdictions of those respective offices; second, according to individual Priesthood-bearers.

This means that while the church as a whole is delicately responsive to central authority for churchwide purposes, the central-local relationships in the organization do not restrict the full initiative and free development of either territorial divisions of the Church, individual quorums, groups of quorums, or the member as an individual. … The Priesthood provides a “functional” instrumentality for church government that is at once efficient and responsible in centralization, but flexible and decentralized in actual administration.”

It is therefore apparent that in Mormon theology the priesthood occupies a position of great importance and comprehends nearly every male member of the church above the age of twelve in one capacity or another; and therefore by necessity the refutation of the Mormon claims to its possession undercuts the very foundations of Mormonism.

With the foregoing in mind, let us examine the Scriptures that most thoroughly refute the Mormon contentions. The Scripture indeed provides a wealth of information.

In the seventh chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, Melchizedek, who was the king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, is mentioned briefly in connection with Abraham. 

The author of Hebrews points out that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Aaronic priesthood and the administrations of the Levites because Abraham, who was the father of the sons of Levi, paid tithe to Melchizedek. This establishes the fact that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham. The writer of Hebrews puts it this way: “And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And as I may

so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchizedek met him” (7:7–10).

The establishment of the fact that the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic would be virtually meaningless if the writer of Hebrews had not gone on to say:

“If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a changealso of the law” (vv. 11–12, emphasis added).

The whole point of the seventh chapter of Hebrews, as any careful exegesis will reveal, is the fact that Jesus Christ who is “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (verse 17) has, by virtue of His sacrifice upon the cross, changed the priesthood of Aaron (verse 12), instituting in its place His own priesthood of the Melchizedek order.

Christ was not of the tribe of Levi and not of the priesthood of Aaron; He was of the tribe of Judah, yet His priesthood is infinitely superior to that of Aaron. It is quite evident that the Levitical priesthood could not evolve into the Melchizedek priesthood, but that it passed away as symbolized by the tearing of the veil leading to the Holy of Holies at the crucifixion (Matthew 27:51).

The writer of Hebrews further states that Christ is our great High Priest and that He has “passed through the heavenlies” to “appear in the presence of God for us.” In addition to this, it is declared that “Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself. … Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:24–26).

The previous reference is clearly to the truth that the old priesthood, which enabled the priests to enter into the temple apartment once every year on the Day of Atonement, had come to a close because Christ has once offered an eternal atonement for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

How significant indeed are these facts when placed beside the Mormon claim to possession of the Aaronic priesthood, which God’s Word says has been “changed” and completely consummated in the Priest whose order is after Melchizedek, Jesus Christ himself.

Our Lord’s priesthood is not dependent upon its continuation from father to son as the Aaronic was through the Levitical order, something necessitated by virtue of the fact that all men die; hence its transference. But the writer of Hebrews tells us that the Lord Jesus Christ “arose after the similitude of Melchizedek.” He is “another priest, Who is made, not after the law of carnal commandment [which is temporary by nature], but after the power of an endless life” (Hebrews 7:15–16). The Greek word akatalutos is rightly translated “imperishable, indestructible, and indissoluble”; and in this context it

refers to His life. He was not consecrated a priest as were the Levites from father to son, but His priesthood is after the order of endless Being. His is an infinite priesthood because 

He is eternal.

All this background is of vital importance in refuting the Mormon claims to the perpetuity of the Aaronic priesthood, but even more so in refuting their concept of the Melchizedek priesthood, which they also claim to have received.

In the same chapter of Hebrews, a second Mormon claim is tersely dispensed with by the Holy Spirit in an emphatic and irrevocable manner.

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able to

save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make

intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not

daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the

people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high

priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh

the Son, who is consecrated for evermore (vv. 22–28).

Particular attention should be paid to verse 24, which, in the Greek, is devastating to the Mormon claim. Verse 24, in Greek, literally reads, “But he continues forever, so his priesthood is untransferable”6-21 (Goodspeed).

The Greek word aparabatos, literally rendered as untransferable, carries the note of finality.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon puts it this way:

“Priesthood unchangeable and therefore not liable to pass to a successor,” Hebrews 7:24 (page 54).

Since the word appears but once in New Testament Greek, there is not even the appeal to possible contextual renderings. Here is one instance where no amount of semantic juggling can escape the force of the context and grammar.

The writer of Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that the priesthood of Melchizedek is the peculiar possession of Jesus Christ, not only by virtue of the fact that He is God and possessed of imperishable life, but because it cannot be transferred to another. It consummated the Aaronic priesthood; it terminated the Levitical order; it resides in the Son of God; and by the will of His Father, it cannot be transferred. There is no escape from the force of these revelations of Scripture, and no exegetical theologian or commentator has ever held otherwise. It is all well and good for the

Mormons to claim the priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek, but it should be pointed out that they do so by contradicting the expressed teaching of the Word of God that they claim to respect.

In his interesting and informative booklet Gods, Sex, and the Saints, Dr. George Arbaugh makes the following observation. “The Mormons are advised that the harvest is ripe and that the sickle should be thrust into the Christian churches. The bold proselytizing usually includes certain stereotyped challenges, questions, and arguments” (p. 39).

Dr. Arbaugh then goes on to point out that the priesthood is one of the areas the Mormons

emphasize. They never tire of stating to any and all who will listen, particularly to those who are likely proselytes, “You do not have the priesthood!”

To answer this, the alert Christian should point out that the Mormons themselves do not have any priesthood, but that the church of Jesus Christ has always had a priesthood, a priesthood very clearly taught in the New Testament. This priesthood was emphasized by the great Reformation theologian Martin Luther, who described it as “the priesthood of all believers.”

Dr. Arbaugh rightly observes,

There are many millions more priests in the Lutheran Church than in the Latter-day

Saint organization, for this reason: that every believer is a priest. There is a universal

priesthood of believers. This means that each believer can come to God in prayer, in his

own right, and that he can speak about his Lord to his fellowmen. He need not wait for

some priest to do the essential Christian things for him. For that matter, how could any

priest do the essential Christian thing for you, namely, to love God and your fellowman

also?

In the original Mormon Church the only officers were elders, but subsequently many

additional offices were established. For this reason Doctrine and Covenants, Section 20,

verses 65 through 67, was “corrected” from the original form in the Book of

Commandments. Mormonism even stoops to falsifying its scriptures in order to pretend

that there have been the same priestly offices in all ages (p. 44).

The True Priesthood

In the opening sentences of the book of the Revelation, John the apostle makes an astounding statement when he declares:

“Blessing and peace to you from him who is, and was, and is coming, and from the seven spirits before his throne and from Jesus Christ, the trustworthy witness, the first born of the dead, the sovereign of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has released us from our sins by his own blood—he has made us a kingdom of priests for his God and Father—to him be glory and power forever” (1:4–6, Goodspeed).

How incisive is this plain declaration by apostolic authority. Jesus Christ who is the sovereign of the kings of the earth, the One who continues to love us and who has released us from our sins through His own blood, has also made us “a kingdom of priests for His God and Father.” Here is the true priesthood indeed.

The Christian does not need temples, secret services, rituals, and mysteries. His priesthood knows no special offices or power to communicate with the dead—things that the Mormon priesthood most definitely claims. The Christian priesthood embraces all those who have been loosed from their sins by the blood of Jesus Christ, and who enjoy the perpetual love of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Communication with the dead is a possibility that many Mormons look forward to. In 1877 Wilford Woodruff expounded on the importance of temple work on behalf of those who are deceased and said, “The dead will be after you, they will seek after you as they have after us in St. George.” (Journal of Discourses, 19:229). In his book Temple Manifestations (Magazine Printing and Publishing, 1979),

Mormon author Joseph Heinerman gives numerous examples of visitations from the dead in Mormon temples.

This concept is further developed in the writings of Peter, who affirms that “You are the chosen race, the royal priesthood, the consecrated nation, his own people, so that you

may declare the virtues of him who has called you out of darkness into his wonderful light; you who were once no people, but are now God’s people; once unpitied, but now pitied indeed” (1 Peter 2:9–10, Goodspeed).

In this context, the words of the apostle establish that long before there were any mythological Mormon priesthoods, there was a priesthood embracing all the redeemed, a “royal priesthood,” neither of Aaron nor of Melchizedek. This priesthood is composed of all consecrated “ambassadors for Christ,” to quote the apostle Paul, whose task it is to exhort men to “be reconciled to God … knowing the terror of the Lord” (see 2 Corinthians 5:20, 11).

As has been observed, Mormonism places great stress upon the priesthood. But as we have also seen, it is not the priesthood described in the Scriptures. Instead, they have substituted the revelation of “prophet” Smith concerning a priesthood, which has been changed (Hebrews 7:12), and a priesthood which by its nature is “untransferable” (7:24). The resulting dilemma is that they have no priesthood at all since their denial of the true deity of Jesus Christ and the nature of God rules out the possibility that they could share in the priesthood of all believers. In order for one to be one of the “kingdom of priests

to God His Father” (Revelation 1:4–6) and a member of the “royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9–10), one must first have undergone personal regeneration in a saving encounter or experience with the God-Man of Scripture—Jesus Christ. Mormon theology with its pantheon of gods, its perverted view of the Virgin Birth, and its outright condemnation of all churches as an “abomination” (Joseph Smith— History 1:19), removes itself from serious consideration as a form of Christianity. There is more to Christianity than the application of the Christian ethic. There is a great deal more to the gospel than the

similarity of terms, albeit redefined. Christianity is not merely a system of doctrinal pronouncements (though they are of vast importance). It is a living, vital experience with the God of the Bible as He was incarnate in the man from Nazareth. Mormonism, with its many doctrinal vagaries and outright denials of historic Christian teachings, disqualifies itself. And its priesthood, on which it places so much emphasis, is shown to be the antithesis of the divine revelation.

It is to be earnestly hoped that more Christians will acquaint themselves with the biblical evidence concerning the true priesthood in which we all participate. It is only when a thorough understanding of the fundamentals of Christian theology is obtained that it is possible to successfully encounter and refute the Mormon doctrine of the priesthood.

The Mormon Doctrine of God

It will be conceded by most informed students of Christianity that one cannot deny the existence of the one true God of Scripture and at the same time lay claim to being a Christian. The New Testament writers, as well as our Lord himself, taught that there was but one God, and all church theologians from the earliest days of church history have affirmed that Christianity is monotheistic in the strictest sense of the term. Indeed it was this fact that so radically differentiated it and the parental Judaism from the pagan, polytheistic societies of Rome and Greece. The Bible is particularly adamant in its declaration that God recognizes the existence of no other “deities.” In fact, on a number of occasions the Lord summed up His uniqueness in the following revelation:

Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye

may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God

formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no

saviour. … Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I

am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. … Ye are even my

witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. … I am the

Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast

not known me. … There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is

none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God,

and there is none else (Isaiah 43:10–11; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 21–22, emphasis added).

Throughout the Old Testament, God is known by many titles. He is Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, El Gebor, and He is also spoken of by combinations of names, such as Jehovah-Elohim, Jehovah-Sabaoth, etc. If the Hebrew Old Testament tells us anything, it is the fact that there is but one God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And Jewish monotheism, as all know, at length gave birth to Christian monotheism, the one developing from the other by progressive revelation from God the Holy Spirit. It is not necessary to belabor the point; it is common knowledge that the facts as they have been stated are true. But as we approach our study of the Mormon concept of God, a subtle yet radical change takes place in the usage of the vocabulary of Scripture as we shall see.

It must also be admitted at the outset that the Bible does designate certain individuals as “gods,” such as Satan who is described by Christ as “the prince of this world” and elsewhere in Scripture as “the god of this world.” It must be clearly understood, however, that whenever this term is assigned to individuals, to spirit personalities, and the like, metaphorical and contextual usage must be carefully analyzed so that a clear picture emerges. For instance, the Lord declared to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). The Hebrew indicates here, when cross-referenced with Exodus 4:16 (“And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.”), that a definite relationship was involved. The context also reveals that Moses, by virtue of the power invested in him by God, became in the eyes of Pharaoh “a god.” Aaron in turn became a prophet of the “god” (Moses) that Pharaoh beheld because he was the spokesman for Moses. So metaphorical usage is

obviously intended, from the very usage of the language and its contextual analysis. On this point all Old Testament scholars are agreed. But this should never cloud the issue that there is only one true and living God as the previous quotations readily attest.

Another instance of similar usage is the application of the term “Elohim,” the plural usage of the term often translated God in the Old Testament. In some contexts the judges of Israel are referred to as “gods,” not that they themselves possessed the intrinsic nature of Deity but that they became in the eyes of the people as gods, or more literally, “mighty ones” (Psalm 82, cf. John 10:34), representing as they did the Lord of Hosts. In the New Testament usage, the apostle Paul is quite explicit when he declares that in the world, i.e., as far as the world is concerned, “(there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us

there is but one God, the Father, … and one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:5–6), a statement emphasized by our Lord when He stated, “I am the first and the last: I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore” (Revelation 1:17–18). We conclude, then, that polytheism is totally foreign to the Judeo-Christian tradition of theology. In fact, it is the antithesis of the extreme monotheism portrayed in Judaism and Christianity. The God of the Old Testament and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same Person; this the Christian church has always held.

In addition to this, God’s nature has always been declared to be that of pure spirit. Our Lord declared that “God is spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24—as correctly translated from the original Greek text). In numerous other places within the pages of the inspired Word of God, the Holy Spirit has been pleased to reveal God’s spiritual nature and “oneness.” 

The apostle Paul reminds us that “a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one” (Galatians 3:20).

The psalmist reminds us of His unchangeable nature, “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2); and Moses records in the initial act of creation that “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). The “gods” mentioned in Scripture, then, are never gods by either identity or nature; they are “gods” by human creation or acclamation as we have seen. This, then, is a far cry from comparison with the one true and living God described by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews as “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12:9; see also Galatians 4:8–9).

The Mormons misuse John 10:34, “Ye are gods,” falsely implying that Jesus endorsed godhood for man. This cannot be true for several reasons. It does not fit the context of John 10:24–36, where Jesus shows his equality with the Father and deservedly is called God. In contrast, the judges (so-called gods) in Psalm 82:6 were so called because of their lofty position over the people, but God rebuked them for their sins, and they were proven to be not gods after all but fallen, sinful men.

How this passage is to support the Mormon position is baffling, because Mormons say they are gods in embryo and they have not yet reached godhood. Whatever they wish John 10:34 to say, it does not support their position. The Mormon can only say he hopes to become a god. Psalm 82 and John 10:34 are in the present tense, a distinction apart from their position.

In fact, upon a reading of Psalm 82, it is a wonder that Mormons would want to identify with the Psalm at all. It says nothing good about these men. But if that is the position they desire, only the judgment of God follows.

Furthermore, the Mormon should be made aware that LDS Apostle James Talmage correctly identified the “gods” of Psalm 82 and John 10:34 when he wrote, “Divinely Appointed Judges Called ‘gods.’ In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called ‘gods.’ To this Scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon’s Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title ‘gods.’ ” (Jesus the Christ, 501).

The Truth About the God of the Mormons

In sharp contrast to the revelations of Scripture are the “revelations” of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the succeeding Mormon “prophets.” So that the reader will have no difficulty understanding what the true Mormon position is concerning the nature of God, the following quotations derived from popular Mormon sources will convey what the Mormons mean when they speak of “God.”

1. “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 349).

2. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man ”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345).

3. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s: the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit ” (Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).

4. “Gods exist, and we had better strive to be prepared to be one with them” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:238).

5. “As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become” (Prophet Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 105–106).

6. “Each of these Gods, including Jesus Christ and His Father, being in possession of not merely an organized spirit, but a glorious immortal body of flesh and bones ” (Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, ed. 1978, 23).

7. “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1).

8. “Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 1:123).

9. “Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God—an exalted being—through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey” (Hunter, op. cit., 104).

10. “Christ was the God, the Father of all things. … Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Mosiah 7:27 and Ether 3:14, Book of Mormon).

11. “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organized this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do”6-22 (Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses, 1:50).

12. Historically this doctrine of Adam-God was hard for even faithful Mormons to believe. As a result, on June 8, 1873, Brigham Young stated: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latterday Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God.

“ ‘Well,’ says one, ‘Why was Adam called Adam?’ He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence. Then he said, ‘I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation’ ”(Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308).

It would be quite possible to continue quoting sources from many volumes and other official Mormon publications, but the fact is well established.

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which disagrees with the Utah church on the subject of polytheism, steadfastly maintains that Joseph Smith Jr. never taught or practiced either polygamy or polytheism, but the following direct quotation from Smith, relative to the plurality of gods and the doctrine that Mormon males may attain to godhood, vexes the Reorganized Church no end. But, it is fact, nonetheless.

The following quotations are excerpted from a sermon published in the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons (August 15, 1844, 5:613–614) four months after Smith delivered it at the funeral of Elder King Follett, and only two months after Smith’s assassination in Carthage, Illinois.

Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith notes that the King Follett sermon was given at the April conference of the Church in 1844 and was heard by around 20,000 people. 

The argument that Smith was misquoted is discounted by the fact that it was recorded by four scribes, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Thomas Bullock. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states that Smith’s two-hour-and-fifteen-minute message “may be one of the Prophet’s greatest sermons because of its doctrinal teachings.”

It is significant that the split in Mormonism did not take place for more than three and a half years.

Apparently their ancestors did not disagree with Smith’s theology, as they themselves do today. Nor did they deny that Smith preached the sermon and taught polytheism, as does the Reorganized Church today. But the facts must speak for themselves. Here are the above mentioned quotes:

I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. … What sort of a being was God in the beginning?

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves … if you were to see him today, you would see him in all the person, image

and very form as a man. …

I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple

and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we

may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us

all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did … what did Jesus say? (mark it

elder Rigdon) Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious. … Here then is

eternal life, to know the only wise and true God. You have got to learn how to be Gods

yourselves; to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you—

namely, by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to

exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as doth those who sit enthroned in everlasting

power.

Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching in effect that the universe is inhabited by different gods who procreate spirit children, which are in turn clothed with bodies on different planets, “Elohim” being the god of this planet (Brigham’s teaching that Adam is our heavenly Father is now officially denied by Mormon authorities, but they hold firm to the belief that their God is a resurrected, glorified man). In addition to this, the “inspired” utterances of Joseph Smith reveal that he began as a Unitarian, progressed to tritheism, and graduated into full-fledged polytheism, in direct contradiction to the revelations of the Old and New Testaments as we have observed. The Mormon doctrine of the trinity is

a gross misrepresentation of the biblical position, though they attempt to veil their evil doctrine in semiorthodox terminology. We have already dealt with this problem, but it bears constant repetition lest the Mormon terminology go unchallenged.

On the surface, they appear to be orthodox, but in the light of unimpeachable Mormon sources, Mormons are clearly evading the issue. The truth of the matter is that Mormonism has never historically accepted the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; in fact, they deny it by completely perverting the meaning of the term. The Mormon doctrine that God the Father is a mere man is the root of their polytheism, and forces Mormons to deny not only the Trinity of God as revealed in Scripture, but the immaterial nature of God as pure spirit. Mormons have gone on record and stated that they accept the doctrine of the Trinity, but, as we have seen, it is not the Christian Trinity. God the Father does not

have a body of flesh and bones, a fact clearly taught by our Lord (John 4:24, cf. Luke 24:39). Mormon Apostle James Talmage describes the church’s teaching, as follows, in his book The Articles of Faith: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims against the incomprehensible God, devoid of “body, parts, or passions,” as a thing impossible of existence, and asserts its belief in and allegiance to the true and living God of scripture and revelation. … Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh. … Jehovah,

who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called “the Father” … that Jesus Christ, whom

we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation as set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, chapter IV (48, 466–467).

In these revealing statements, Talmage lapses into the error of making Elohim and Jehovah two separate gods, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that Elohim “the greater god” and Jehovah— Jesus the lesser god, begotten by Elohim—are compounded in the Hebrew as “Jehovah the Mighty One,” or simply “Jehovah God” as any concordance of Hebrew usage in the Old Testament readily reveals (LORD—Yahweh; God—Elohim). This error is akin to that of Mary Baker Eddy who, in her glossary to Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures made exactly the same error, she too being in complete ignorance of the Hebrew language. In this grammatical error, Christian Science and the Mormons are in unique agreement.

Talmage’s argument that “to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God; for a thing without parts has no whole and an immaterial body cannot exist” is both logically and theologically an absurdity. To illustrate this, one needs only to point to the angels whom the Scriptures describe as “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:7), beings who have immaterial “bodies” of spiritual substances and yet exist. The Mormons involve themselves further in a hopeless contradiction when, in their doctrine of the preexistence of the soul, they are forced to redefine the meaning of soul as used in both the Old

and the New Testaments to teach that the soul is not immaterial, while the Bible clearly teaches that it is. Our Lord, upon the cross, spoke the words, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Certainly this was immaterial. And Paul, preparing to depart from this world for the celestial realms, indicated that his real spiritual self (certainly immaterial, since his body died) was yearning to

depart and to be with Christ, which is far better (Philippians 1:21–23). The martyr Stephen also committed his spirit (or immaterial nature) into the hands of the Father, crying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). And there are numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments that indicate an “immaterial nature” can exist, provided that form is of a spiritual substance as is God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as was Jesus Christ as the preincarnate Logos (John 1:1, cf. John 1:14). Far from asserting their “belief and allegiance to the true and living God of Scripture and revelation,” as Talmage represents Mormonism, Mormons indeed have sworn allegiance to a polytheistic pantheon of gods, which they are striving to join, there to enjoy a polygamous eternity of progression toward godhood.

One can search the corridors of pagan mythology and never equal the complex structure that the complex structure which the mormons have erected and masked under the terminology and misnomer of orthodix Christianity, as previously demonstrated.

That the Mormons reject the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity no student of the movement can deny, for after quoting the Nicene Creed and early church theology on the trinity, Talmage, in The Articles of Faith, declares: “It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as here. … The immateriality of God as asserted in these declarations of sectarian faith is entirely at variance with the scriptures, and absolutely contradicted by the revelations of God’s person and attributes ”(p. 48).

After carefully perusing hundreds of volumes on Mormon theology and scores of pamphlets dealing with this subject, the author can quite candidly state that never has he seen such misappropriation of terminology, disregard of context, and utter abandon of scholastic principles demonstrated on the part of non-Christian cultists than is evidenced in the attempts of Mormon theologians to appear orthodox and at the same time undermine the foundations of historic Christianity. The intricacies of their complex system of polytheism causes the careful researcher to ponder again and again the ethical

standard that these Mormon writers practice and the blatant attempts to rewrite history, biblical theology, and the laws of scriptural interpretation that they might support the theologies of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Without fear of contradiction, I am certain that Mormonism cannot stand investigation and wants no part of it unless the results can be controlled under the guise of “broadmindedness” and “tolerance.”

On one occasion, when the Mormon doctrine of God was under discussion with a young woman leaning in the direction of Mormon conversion, I offered in the presence of witnesses to retract this chapter and one previous effort (Mormonism, Zondervan Publishing House, 1958) if the Mormon elders advising this young lady would put in writing that they and their church rejected polytheism for monotheism in the tradition of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was a bona fide offer; the same offer has been made from hundreds of platforms to tens of thousands of people over a twenty-year period. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is well aware of the offer. To the unwary, however, they imply that they are monotheists, to the informed they defend their polytheism, and like the veritable chameleon they change color to accommodate the surface upon which they find themselves.

G. B. Arbaugh, in his classic volume Revelation in Mormonism (1932), has documented in exhaustive detail the progress of Mormon theology from Unitarianism to polytheism. His research has been invaluable and available to interested scholars for over sixty years, with the full knowledge of the Mormon Church. In fact, the Mormons are significantly on the defensive where the peculiar origins of the “sacred writings” are involved or when verifiable evidence exists that reveals their polytheistic perversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is extremely difficult to write kindly of Mormon theology when they are so obviously deceptive in their presentation of data, so adamant in their condemnation of

all religions in favor of the “restored gospel” allegedly vouchsafed to the prophet Joseph Smith. We must not, however, confuse the theology with the person as is too often the case, for while hostility toward the former is scriptural, it is never so with the latter.

Continuing with our study, Apostle Orson Pratt, writing in The Seer, declared: “In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each one of whom has his own wife or wives, which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state” (p. 37). In this terse sentence, Pratt summed up the whole hierarchy of Mormon polytheism, and quotations previously adduced from a reputable Mormon source support Pratt’s summation beyond reasonable doubt. The Mormon teaching that God was seen “face to face” in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:9, 11, 23; Exodus 24:9–11; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Genesis 5:24, etc.) is refuted on two counts, that of language and the science of comparative textual analysis (hermeneutics).

From the standpoint of linguistics, all the references cited by the Mormons to prove “that God has a physical body that could be observed” melt away in the light of God’s expressed declaration, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Exodus 33:20).

Exodus 33:11 (face to face) in the Hebrew is rendered “intimate,” and in no sense is it opposed to verse 20 Similar expressions are utilized in Deuteronomy 5:4 while in Genesis 32:30 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks, not Jehovah himself. The Old Testament is filled with theophanies (literally, Godappearances), instances where God spoke or revealed himself in angelic manifestations, and it is accepted by all Old Testament scholars almost without qualification that anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to God) are the logical explanation of many of the encounters of God with man.

To argue, as the Mormons do, that such occurrences indicate that God has a body of flesh and bone, as “prophet” Smith taught, is on the face of the matter untenable and another strenuous attempt to force polytheism on a rigidly monotheistic religion. Progressing beyond this, another cardinal Mormon point of argument is the fact that because expressions such as “the arm of the Lord,” “the eye of the Lord,” “the hand of the Lord,” “nostrils,” “mouth,” etc., are used, all tend to show that God possesses a physical form. However, they have overlooked one important factor. This factor is that of literary

metaphor, extremely common in Old Testament usage. If the Mormons are to be consistent in their interpretation, they should find great difficulty in the Psalm where God is spoken of as “covering with his feathers,” and man “trusting under his wings.” If God has eyes, ears, arms, hands, nostrils, mouth, etc., why then does He not have feathers and wings? The Mormons have never given a satisfactory answer to this, because it is obvious that the anthropomorphic and metaphorical usage of terms relative to God are literary devices to convey His concern for and association with man. In like manner, metaphors such as feathers and wings indicate His tender concern for the protection of those who

“dwell in the secret place of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” 

The Mormons would do well to comb the Old Testament and the New Testament for the numerous metaphorical usages readily available for observation. In doing so, they would have to admit, if they are at all logically consistent, that Jesus was not a door (John 10:9), a shepherd (John 10:11), a vine (John 15:1), a roadway (John 14:6), a loaf of bread (John 6:51), and other metaphorical expressions any more than “our God is a consuming fire” means that Jehovah should be construed as a blast furnace or a volcanic cone.

The Mormons themselves are apparently unsure of the intricacies of their own polytheistic structure, as revealed in the previously cited references from Joseph Smith, who made Christ both the Father and the Son in one instance, and further on indicated that there was a mystery connected with it and that only the Son could reveal how He was both the Father and the Son. Later, to compound the difficulty, Smith separated them completely into “separate personages,” eventually populating the entire universe with his polytheistic and polygamous deities. If one peruses carefully the books of Abraham and Moses as contained in the Pearl of Great Price (allegedly “translated” by Smith), as well as sections of Ether in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Discourses of Brigham Young, the entire Mormon dogma of the preexistence of the soul, the polygamous nature of the gods, the brotherhood of Jesus and Lucifer, and the hierarchy of heaven (telestial, terrestrial, and celestial— corresponding to the basement, fiftieth floor, and observation tower of the Empire State Building, respectively), and the doctrines of universal salvation, millennium, resurrection, judgment, and final punishment, will unfold in a panorama climaxing in a polygamous paradise of eternal duration. Such is

the Mormon doctrine of God, or, more properly, of the gods, which rivals anything pagan mythology ever produced.