What To Say To Mormons
When They Knock On Your Door
 

By Michael Licona

Introduction

Someday it will happen to you. You are about to sit down for a late breakfast on a Saturday morning. The French toast smells delicious! A glass of orange juice and a cup of coffee will make the start of a great day. You pour the syrup and prepare to take that tasty first bite, when there is a knock on your door. Perhaps it is the neighbor's child asking for your daughter. Maybe it is the guy next door who would like to borrow your Craftsman tools again. You open the door and . . . oh! . . . it is the Mormons!

Sharply dressed and very friendly, they ask if they can come in and tell you about God's good news. But you are unsure. You remember your Sunday School teacher talking about these visitors who claim they are Christians. Some of the points the teacher made are vague in your mind and many are forgotten. You desire to share with them and feel that you should, but you do not want to get into a conversation unprepared. So you politely say, "I'm too busy" and close the door.

Ah, yes. Where were you? That is right, back to your breakfast. You slice off a piece of French toast with syrup and take a bite. Mmmm! However, while sipping your coffee you feel a sense of disappointment. You know that you just passed up a valuable opportunity to share your faith because you were unprepared. You say to yourself, "If Jesus were here he would have spoken to them."

If you want to be ready the next time they come, this book is for you. Its purpose is to provide the knowledge you need to see why these groups do not represent God's truth and to share this information effectively with Mormons the next time they knock on your door!

 

Chapter 1: About the Mormons

Who are the Mormons?

A. History. Mormonism started in 1830 with 24-year-old year old Joseph Smith, Jr. According to Smith, he had several experiences, during which God, Jesus, and the angel Moroni gave him instructions. Part of the instructions was to dig up some gold plates buried by the angel Moroni around A.D. 400 on a hill just outside of Smith's town of Palmyra, New York. Smith dug up the plates, claimed they were written in "Reformed Egyptian," and that God had given him the ability to translate them. This translation became known as the Book of Mormon, an account of the ancient inhabitants of North America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400.¹

Mormons have four sources of authority: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become one of the fastest growing religions in the world. In 1997, Latter-day Saints membership totaled just shy of 10 million worldwide.² The church owns many businesses, including Brigham Young University.

B. Doctrines. Mormon beliefs are fundamentally different from biblical Christianity. These have been detailed in other publications.³ Therefore, it will not be the purpose of this book to spell out the differences in Mormon and Christian doctrine, but rather to answer the question, "Is Mormonism true?" However, a few of the more peculiar Mormon doctrines are mentioned below:

1.   God. Once a human as we are now, and progressed to become God. He is one of many Gods.
2.   Man. Has the ability to progress and become a god just as Jehovah did.
3.   Marriage. Polygamy is no longer advocated, although it once was encouraged.
4.   Jesus. The son of God, but not part of the Godhead. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity.⁴

C. The People. Mormons are wonderful people who are very sincere about their faith and are very caring. Conversations with Mormon missionaries promise to be cordial. Although Mormon scholars, such as those at Brigham Young University, are well aware of the challenges which face Mormonism, Mormon laity, including Mormon missionaries, are pretty much in the dark and will be surprised when you share the information contained in the first half of this book.

 

What Mormons tell you when they knock on your door

When Mormons visit you, they usually will not focus on the doctrines previously mentioned. In fact, they probably will not even bring them up during the first few meetings. Instead they will seek to find common ground with you on many of the doctrines Christians believe. For example, they may begin by saying that God revealed the Old Testament through Moses and the Prophets. Then Jesus came, was crucified and resurrected. His disciples wrote books and letters that became the New Testament. We all agree on these facts. Then the differences begin. They will tell you that before Jesus' ascension into heaven, He appeared to the inhabitants of North America and gave them the Gospel as well. His message and the history of these inhabitants from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 are recorded in the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, they will tell you that since the apostles were not replaced when they were killed, the Church went into apostasy. In other words, it abandoned the true faith, and consequently, a restoration was necessary. Mormons believe that God chose Joseph Smith to bring that restoration; therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church.

 

How to answer Mormons

Mormons are well equipped to answer many of the issues Christians bring to their attention and have answers adequate to silence the average critic. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door are cordial and will listen to what you have to say. Enjoy the opportunity to share your faith with them, but be prepared by having good answers.

Although there are many issues, which you may bring to the Mormons' attention, focus on four (4) that are of primary importance. These will be the focus of the first half of this book and are:

1. The Bible is reliable. Mormons claim that the Bible has been corrupted over the years as evidenced by the many different translations. How do we know that the Bible we have today is the same as it was two thousand years ago? In Chapter 2 we will see that the original words of the Bible have been preserved with remarkable purity and that its accuracy has been confirmed by both history and archaeology. We will also discuss how the variances among English translations do not call into question the preservation of the Bible over the years. Until you have shown this to a Mormon, it is useless to point out that some Mormon doctrines differ from the Bible. They will only respond that the Bible is unreliable. This is our topic in the next chapter.

2. There is no archaeological confirmation of the Book of Mormon. While the spade of the archaeologist has confirmed many places and peoples mentioned in the Bible, it has not been at all favorable to the Book of Mormon. Although Mormons will confidently assert that archaeology has confirmed the Book of Mormon's accuracy time and time again, professional archaeologists have arrived at quite a different conclusion. You will find out more about this problem in Chapter 3.

3. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. The Book of Abraham is one of the books in the Pearl of Great Price, one of Mormonism's scriptures. Joseph Smith purchased some ancient Egyptian papyri and claimed it was an original book penned by Abraham himself while in Egypt. He translated it allegedly by the same gift which God had given him to translate the Book of Mormon. Professional Egyptologists have translated the papyri since their rediscovery in 1967. Their translations bear no resemblance to Smith's translation, exposing him as a charlatan. You will find out about this subject of which few Mormons are even aware in Chapter 4.

4. Evidence for Mormonism? Mormons are convinced that Mormonism is true because of the inward testimony of God that tells them so. If you are going to be effective when talking to Mormons, it is crucial that you address this issue as well. Otherwise, no amount of solid evidence, which testifies against Mormonism, will be of help to them. See that their approach is neither prudent nor biblical. This will be addressed in Chapter 5.

Chapter 6 will show you how to communicate these four issues so that you will be able to respond intelligently and effectively to Mormons the next time they knock on your door.

 

Chapter 2: The Bible is Reliable

If you ask a Mormon if he believes the Bible, he will refer to a Mormon document, The Articles of Faith, verse 8, which says, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Mormons will tell you they believe the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly." Most Christians will agree with that statement. What Mormons will not tell you, unless you ask, is that they do not believe the Bible has been translated correctly, but that it has been corrupted over the years.

Do you remember when your teacher played a game in class? She whispered something in the ear of three students in the front row, who whispered the message into the ear of the fellow student behind them, who in turn whispered into the ear of the student behind them, until the final three students in the back row received the message. Of course all three had something different to repeat. Mormon thought is if a message can change to that extent in five minutes, we cannot trust a message that has been passed around for 2,000 years! Mormons also claim that the number of different translations on the market evidences this corruption. If we know what the Bible originally said, why are so many translations available?

While the arguments of Mormons to discredit the reliability of the Bible may seem persuasive on the surface, they collapse when looked at carefully. In this chapter we will see that the Bible is a reliable document that has been accurately preserved over thousands of years. Next, we will explain why so many translations exist. Finally, we will discuss how archaeology and secular history have confirmed the historical accuracy of much of the Bible. This third section will provide a ground for us to compare the accuracy of the Book of Mormon, which we will examine in the next chapter.

 

The text of the Bible is pure

1. The New Testament. Most, if not all, of the New Testament was originally written in Greek. How do we know that the New Testament which we have today is what was originally written? Let us take a look at the evidence that consists of thousands of ancient manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations of the New Testament found in the writings of the early Church Fathers.

a) Greek Manuscripts. Approximately 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament have survived in the original language.⁵

b) Ancient Versions. By the second century, the New Testament was being translated into different languages. Syriac, Latin, Coptic and other translations provide valuable sources from which to compare.

c) Early Church Fathers. Within 300 years of Christ, almost 36,000 quotations of the New Testament appear in the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, every verse in the New Testament is quoted but 11.⁶

What does all of this mean? Let us go back to grade school. Remember our game? The teacher notes that mistakes occurred while passing around her message. Suppose another teacher goes around to several of those in the middle of each of our three lines and asks them what message they received. Then suppose he interviews others in the lines as well. After a while he will probably be able to determine where the errors occurred and by comparing what several of the students say, will be able to come back to a statement, which is very close, if not exact, to what was originally said. Likewise, although there are variations in the New Testament manuscripts, there are literally tens of thousands of manuscripts from which to do a comparative study. And when scholars in the field of textual criticism do comparisons, a text of the New Testament can be produced which is better than 99.5 percent pure to what the originals said.⁷  And none of the less than one-half of one percent of what is in question affects, any doctrine.

2. The Old Testament. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew before the New Testament (between 1,400 to 400 B.C.). One issue on which Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christians agree is Jesus and His apostles believed that the Old Testament was the inspired, uncorrupted Word of God.

Jesus' ministry was dedicated to teaching and fulfilling the Scriptures. When tempted, Jesus appealed to the Scriptures (Matthew 4:1-11). When answering questions concerning Himself, He appealed to the Scriptures, "It is written . . ." (Mark 9:12). At His arrest (Matthew 26:52-56), trial (Matthew 26:64), execution (Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:26-31; 23:46), and resurrection (Luke 24:27, 44-46), Jesus appealed to the Scriptures. Jesus cites one of Moses' statements found in Genesis as if God spoke it (Matthew 19:4-5).  His apostles, likewise, viewed the Old Testament Scriptures as the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).

Mormons believe that although Jesus and His apostles had God's Word in their hands (i.e., the Old Testament), much of it has since been corrupted; therefore, is not trustworthy. Is this true? Let us look at the evidence which consists of the Hebrew text which has been passed on for over one thousand years known as the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient versions, and Old Testament verses cited in the New Testament.

a) Masoretic Text. The text of the Old Testament used by translators of the Bible is referred to as the Masoretic text, named after the Masoretes who meticulously copied and edited the text between A.D. 600-1,000.

b) Dead Sea Scrolls. In 1946, hundreds of scrolls and fragments were found in eleven caves in northern Israel. Texts from every book of the Old Testament were found, with the lone exception of Esther. Of most importance are two Isaiah scrolls, which are dated between 200 to 50 B.C. One of them has been wonderfully preserved and contains the book of Isaiah in its entirety. When this text of Isaiah was compared to the book of Isaiah in the Masoretic text, there was nearly a 100% correlation between the two, which indicated that the Hebrew text has been marvelously preserved from a time before Jesus until the present.

c) Ancient Versions. Two ancient versions are helpful when comparing them to the Hebrew text: the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in Jesus' day and is quoted many times by the New Testament writers. If you were to translate the Septuagint back into Hebrew, the similarity to the Masoretic Text is striking. The Samaritan Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible which were used by the Samaritans, a group of Jews which permanently separated themselves from the general Jewish population around 500 B.C. Again the similarities to the Masoretic Text are striking.

d) Old Testament verses in the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament cite verses from the Old Testament a total of 330 times!⁸  Most of these citations are from the Septuagint. Others are from the Hebrew texts. Once again there is an incredible correlation to the Old Testament that we have today.

How close can we get to a pure text? Approximately 90 percent of the text of the Old Testament is without any variation, regardless of the textual tradition.⁹ Within the remaining 10 percent, the variances are insignificant, none of which affect any biblical doctrine. Most can be eliminated when certain errors are detected: obvious slips of the pen, an inadequate knowledge of the Hebrew language on the part of the translator,¹⁰ partisan thinking,¹¹ and different dialects.¹² Therefore, when proper textual criticism is conducted, a text with a purity exceeding 95 percent results. The remaining uncertainties mostly amount to a simple discrepancy in word order.

When the evidence is considered, we can confidently assert that the Bible in our possession today, both the Old and New Testaments, is a pure and trustworthy text we can rely on. Even scholars who do not believe the Bible refuse to levy the charge that the Bible has been corrupted over the years resulting in a text which we cannot be certain of. The Bible is a text which has been preserved with amazing accuracy, far better than any other work of antiquity.

 

What about all the translations?

We have established that the Hebrew and Greek texts used today by translators are essentially pure to what the originals said. So why are there so many English translations of the Bible? Does this indicate that we cannot be certain what those Hebrew and Greek texts said?

It has been nearly 400 years since the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible was produced. The English language has changed considerably over that period of time. The orthography (i.e., the way a word was written) of 1611 is not readable to most of us today as anyone picking up a KJV from 1611 will immediately find. Likewise some spellings and word meanings are different today than four hundred years ago. For example, Psalm 5:6 in the King James Version reads, "Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing."

To "speak leasing" today might refer to a consumer going to a car dealership and discussing the leasing of an automobile. However, in Elizabethan English, the term "leasing" meant to lie. Modern translations "update" the language.  "You destroy those who speak falsehood" (Ps. 5:6, NASB).¹³  "You destroy those who tell lies" (Ps. 5:6, NIV).¹⁴

Consider 1 Corinthians 15:9 (KJV) where Paul says, "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

The word "meet" is no longer used in the sense of being worthy or deserving. The original text and the meaning of the Greek word remains unchanged, but our English translation of the word should be "updated" as our language changes. Modern translations have responded.

"For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (NASB)

"For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (NIV)

English translations were also created to serve different purposes. If you have studied another language, for example French or Spanish, you know that the grammar of one language is different from the grammar of another. Some translations were made for the purpose of being a literal translation (almost a word for word accuracy). The New American Standard Bible is a good example of such a translation. Other translations were made for the purpose of being accurate but easier to read. The New International Version attempts to maintain accuracy while putting the message of the original Greek and Hebrew in today's English vernacular. The Living Bible is not a translation but a paraphrase. It attempts to restate the meaning of the verse solely for ease of reading. The New Living Translation seeks to be an accurate translation while promoting a simpler vocabulary. So translations are not necessarily scholars disagreeing with one another, but language updates and different objectives.

The Mormon scriptures affirm that Mormons believe the Bible is the Word of God "as far as it is translated correctly" (Doctrine and Covenants, Article of Faith 8). Since we can now know with a great deal of certainty what the original text of the Bible says, the linguist can translate the Hebrew and Greek into English. An understanding of the role of different translations reveals that most of them faithfully and accurately render the message of the original languages.

 

Archaeology and history have confirmed the Bible

Is the Bible myth or are the places and events described in it a part of human history? Many findings from archaeology have confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. In their book, When Skeptics Ask, Geisler and Brooks describe a fascinating archaeological find, "The excavation of Gezer in 1969 ran across a massive layer of ash that covered most of the mound. Sifting through the ash yielded pieces of Hebrew, Egyptian, and Philistine artifacts. Apparently all three cultures had been there at the same time. This puzzled researchers greatly until they realized that the Bible told them exactly what they had found."¹⁵

1.  What does the Bible say regarding Gezer?  "For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and captured Gezer and burned it with fire, and killed the Canaanites [Philistines] who lived in the city, and had given it as a dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife. So Solomon rebuilt Gezer" (1 Kings 9:16-17, NASB).

The Egyptians killed the Canaanites (Philistines) who lived in Gezer, burned the city, and gave it to Solomon's wife. Solomon rebuilt it and populated it with Jews. The biblical account explains the ashes and the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Philistine artifacts.

The Smithsonian Institution's Department of Anthropology has an official statement on "The Bible as History." In it they say, "Much of the Bible in particular the historical books of the Old Testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These biblical records can be, and are used, as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed."¹⁶

Outside sources have confirmed much of the New Testament as well. Suetonius was an ancient Roman Historian who wrote in the very early part of the second century. In The Twelve Caesars, Suetonius writes, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city"¹⁷  (Claudius, Section 25).

"Chrestus" may refer to Christ; however, what is of real interest is that the pagan historian says that the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. Approximately sixty years earlier Luke wrote, "And he [Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome" (Acts 18:2, NASB).

The New Testament, especially the writings of Luke, is filled with accurate historical data. So much that archaeologists and historians alike have been impressed. The famous archaeologist and once skeptic Sir William Ramsey wrote, "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."¹⁸  The classical historian A. N. Sherwin-White writes, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."19

The spade of the archaeologist, the pen of ancient non-Christian historians, and tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts provide evidence that the Bible is a volume which is historically reliable and that its text has been preserved in a pure form. In other words, it is trustworthy. Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, as we shall see, the same cannot be said for their scriptures.

 

Chapter 3: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

In the last chapter we saw that the Bible is reliable, being textually pure and verifiably accurate in many places. Therefore, the Mormon can have confidence that the Bible is the Word of God and that it can be accurately translated. In this chapter we will examine the Book of Mormon to see how it holds up to the historical test. The Mormons at your door will tell you that many findings within archaeology have confirmed the Book of Mormon time and time again. Is this true? What does the historical data we have tell us about the events recorded in the Book of Mormon?

 

There is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology

1.  What Mormon archeologists say?  Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned by the Mormon Church and has a department of professional archeologists who are dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon. These professionals, who are practicing Mormons, are to be applauded for their honesty. What many of them have to say will be a shock to the lay Mormon who is unaware that archaeology and the Book of Mormon are at odds with one another. The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church that archaeology continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars, who actually study archaeology for a living, have something quite different to say.

"[It appears that the Book of Mormon] had no place in the New World whatsoever . . . [It] just doesn't seem to fit anything . . . in anthropology [or] history . . . . It seems misplaced."²⁰

"The first myth that we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists."²¹

"What I would say to you is there is no archeological proof of the Book of Mormon. You can look all you want. And there's been a lot of speculation about it. There've been books written by Mormon scholars saying that "this event took place here" or "this event took place here." But that's entirely speculative. There is absolutely no archeological evidence that you can tie directly to events that took place."²²

"Now, I'm an archeologist, and I work in Mexico where some people think that the events occurred. So a lot of Mormons ask me every week if I find any evidence. And I tell them, "No." . . . (T)he question of how to translate what the Book says in terms of real evidence that we can grab in our hands, archeologically, is still a huge problem."²³

Keep in mind that all of these are practicing Mormons who are professional Book of Mormon archeologists!

2.  What non-Mormon archeologists say?  Earlier we read from the Smithsonian Institution's statement "The Bible as History." We saw that archaeology confirms much of the Bible and that professional archeologists use the Bible in their work. The Smithsonian also has a "STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON." This statement can be requested at the same address. Every one of the statements are damaging to the reliability of the Book of Mormon. Here is the first of eight statements: "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."

In 1989, Michael Ammons wrote to the National Geographic Society requesting information on the Book of Mormon and archaeology. The Society replied in a letter dated April 26, 1989

"Neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically."

Also in 1989, Linda Hansen wrote to the Department of Archaeology at Boston University with a similar request. In a reply letter dated April 5, 1989, Julie Hansen of the Department responded:

"The Archaeological Institute of America has never used the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide in locating historic ruins on the Western Hemisphere . . . Over the past 30 years The New World Archaeological Foundation, located at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, has conducted numerous scientific excavations in Mesoamerica, originally with a view to confirming the claims in the Book of Mormon. They have discovered no evidence that supports the Book of Mormon in any way. Nonetheless, they have published in full detail the results of their excavations in Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Volumes 1-55, 1959 and following. . . . They are accepted by the Archaeological Institute of America and the Society of American Archaeologists as legitimate scientific investigations and the New World Archaeological Foundation is to be commended for publishing the results of their work that essentially refutes the basic beliefs of the Mormon Church on which the Foundation is based."²⁴ 

Therefore, there is a consensus from professional archaeologists, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, that there is no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

 

The lack of archaeological evidence is sometimes damaging

The Book of Mormon claims that the ancient inhabitants spoke and wrote in "Reformed Egyptian" and Hebrew.²⁵ If this were the case, we would expect to find artifacts with writings in these languages. However, the Smithsonian's eighth statement regarding the Book of Mormon says:

"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 reputablescholars. 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."

The Book of Mormon states that the two peoples mentioned (Nephites and Lamanites) had Jewish beliefs that became Christian when the resurrected Christ appeared to them. However, there is no evidence that the ancient inhabitants in the Americas had either Jewish or Christian beliefs.

Hill Cumorah is located in New York, southeast of Rochester. Joseph Smith claimed that when Moroni appeared to him, he was told that Moroni's father, Mormon, buried the gold plates upon which the Book of Mormon was based on the hill Cumorah just before the great final battle there (Mormon 6:6). In the Pearl of Great Price, Smith writes that the day after his second vision, he went to a large hill outside of the village where his family lived (the hill Cumorah) and found the gold plates.²⁶ This identifies the hill where Smith dug up the plates as the same hill where Mormon buried them and where the great battle took place. In Mormon 6:10-15, it is claimed that hundreds of thousands of people were killed on or near the hill Cumorah during that final battle. It says that "their flesh, and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their mother earth" (Mormon 6:15). In other words, their bodies were left there, unburied.

To help you understand the magnitude of casualties at hill Cumorah, let us consider another major battle. During the Battle of Gettysburg of the American Civil War there were 55,000 soldiers wounded, 6,000 of them killed on the battlefield and 4,000 more whose wounds were mortal. Eyewitnesses said that there was so much blood from the dead and injured that there were parts of the battlefield that seemed like streams of blood. So many men and horses died that all could not be buried at once and many corpses were left on the battlefield until a few days later when others were hired to do the task.

If 6,000 men died on the battlefield at Gettysburg, what would a battlefield look like with hundreds of thousands dead? Since they were left unburied at hill Cumorah, wouldn't there be some artifacts made of metal and stone? Bullets by the thousands are found at Gettysburg. Nothing however has been found at hill Cumorah.

University of Rochester paleontologist and stratigrapher Carl Brett has worked in the Palmyra, New York area where hill Cumorah is located and is familiar with the hill and its geologic conditions. He says that if hundreds of thousands were slaughtered at the hill and not buried, there would still be skeletal remains on the surface today, even after 1,600 years.  Scavengers and weather conditions would account for why much is gone, but there would still be quite enough left to look at. Metallic artifacts from weapons and armor would also be easily found.²⁷ But nothing has ever been found at hill Cumorah.

 

Attempts by Mormons to answer the archeological problem fail

During a series of conversations I once had with a Mormon friend and some Mormon missionaries, I turned to them in the first meeting and said that one objection I had to Mormonism was that there is no archaeological evidence to support the stories in the Book of Mormon. One of the missionaries smiled confidently and claimed there was a lot of evidence from archaeology to support the historical truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I asked him to show me some. He said he did not have any information with him, but would bring some to our next meeting. He did. Needless to say he was shocked when I quoted the Mormon scholars below who refuted the very materials he had in hand!

"Few of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe; others have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are Professor Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not qualified to handle the archaeological materials their works often involve."²⁸

"Those volumes which most flagrantly ignore time and space and most radically distort, misinterpret, or ignore portions of the archaeological evidence are the popular Farnsworth volumes. Also inadequate, from a professional archaeologist's point of view, are the well intentioned volumes by Milton R. Hunter and a number of smaller pamphlets and works by various authors . . . . New World Old World comparisons have been less popular but fraught with problems. The best known examples are the two volumes by Nibley which suffer from an overdose of Old Worlditis . . . . He does not know New World culture history well, and his writing ignores the considerable indigenous elements in favor of exclusively Old World patterns."²⁹ 

"In situations where sources of religious and secular authority conflict with each other, a Latter-day Saint sometimes finds himself in a quandary. He has been assured by a folklore transmitted in lessons, talks and church literature that archaeologists (usually Gentiles) are steadily proving the Book of Mormon authentic, while through his formal education and secular literature he has become aware that in actuality the experts seem to contradict the scripture."³⁰
 
"Science does not arrive at its conclusions by syllogism, and no people on earth deplore proof demonstration by syllogism more loudly than real archaeologists do. Yet, Mr. Jakeman's study is nothing but an elaborate syllogistic stew. The only clear and positive thing about the whole study is the objective the author is determined to reach."³¹

Again, everyone of the above are practicing Mormons. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, BYU is owned by the Mormon Church and has a Department dedicated to Book of Mormon archaeology. According to BYU anthropologist John Clark, virtually all of the professional archaeologists there admit that archaeological finds which specifically tie the past to events in the Book of Mormon are missing. These practicing Mormons, call books and their authors that list sensational findings not qualified, inadequate, and speculative.

Some Mormons will respond that these archeologists do not represent the official church position, so their opinions are not credible. But why trivialize and dismiss the findings of the overwhelming consensus of practicing Mormons who are professional archaeologists, yet accept, without question, the official Mormon Church position? Could it be that the ground's silence is indicative of a Mormon Church position that is false? After all, if it is false, silence from archaeology is precisely what we might expect to find.

It is fair to mention that professional Mormon archaeologists claim there is general confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology, citing peoples existing where it is thought Book of Mormon peoples may have existed. This general confirmation, however, does not show that the Mormon picture of history is true. These same archaeologists (Johnson, Clark) admit that conclusions regarding the findings are pure speculation. The issue is not, "Did people exist in the Americas between 600 B.C. through A.D. 400?" We know that they did. The issue is, "Can we identify these civilizations as the ones mentioned in the Book of Mormon?" And the answer from virtually all professional Mormon and non-Mormon archaeologists alike is no.

In the last chapter we saw that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in our possession today allow us to have an accurate translation of the Bible. Therefore, even by Mormon standards, we can be confident that we have the Word of God. We also saw that secular history has attested to the accuracy of the Bible so that we can know with certainty that many of the events recorded in it took place. Unfortunately, the Mormon cannot have this same confidence when it comes to the Book of Mormon. Archaeology and secular history are silent when asked if the events took place. Not only is this silence disturbing to professional Mormon archaeologists, but it is evidence against Mormonism when no artifacts turn up in areas which should be abundant with relics such as the hill Cumorah. However, as damaging as these may be, Mormonism's greatest challenge concerns another one of their scriptures, the Book of Abraham, which will be the subject of our next chapter.

Chapter 4: The Book of Abraham

In the last chapter, we saw some of the problems Mormonism faces with the Book of Mormon and archaeology. In this chapter we will examine another book of the Mormon Scriptures called the Book of Abraham. The problems encountered here are devastating to the credibility of Mormonism.

Mormonism has four (4) sources that they consider to be Scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The Pearl of Great Price contains the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the Writings of Joseph Smith which include his translation of Matthew 23:39 through all of Chapter 24, and excerpts from History of the Church.

The Book of Abraham is of particular interest. In 1835, Smith purchased some mummies that were accompanied by ancient Egyptian papyri. Smith claimed to be able to translate the papyri because they were written in the same language as the Book of Mormon, "Reformed Egyptian." As he translated the manuscripts, he claimed that part contained the Book of Abraham, a book written by Abraham himself.

 

There are problems with the Book of Abraham

The papyri for the Book of Abraham contained some drawings with Egyptian writing that were subsequently published in Times and Seasons, a Mormon newspaper. The papyri were lost after Smith's death in 1844. In 1967 the papyri were rediscovered by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York who returned them to the Mormon Church which confirmed them to be the originals and published them for others to see. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought asked three prominent Egyptologists to translate the papyri. The Mormon Church had no need to fear. Since Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the contemporary translation would be very close to Smith's. However, the stakes were high. The translations of the Egyptologists could either confirm Joseph Smith as a true prophet or convict him as a charlatan. Furthermore, if Joseph Smith was terribly wrong in his translation of the Book of Abraham, it follows that he cannot be trusted to have produced an accurate translation of the Book of Mormon, which he himself claimed was in the same language.

John Wilson and Klaus Baer, both Professors of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, and Richard Parker, a Professor of Egyptology at Brown University, were asked to do the task. Here are the results:

John Wilson said that the text Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was actually "a related mortuary text of late times, the so-called Book of the Breathings." The Book of Breathings was an ancient Egyptian document, which was buried with the dead in order to provide guidance in the afterlife (which explains why Joseph Smith's papyri were found among the mummies he had purchased). Wilson also claimed that one of the drawings Smith included in the Book of Abraham was actually a hypocephalus, "a cartonnage disk which was placed under the head of a mummy toward the end of ancient Egyptian history."³²

Klaus Baer said that the papyri that Smith thought was the Book of Abraham were actually "The Breathing Permit belonging to the priest Hor."³³ This is another name given for the Book of Breathings. Baer provided a comparison of his translation with Joseph Smith's. It is quite easy to see that there is not the slightest resemblance between the two. For example . . .

Baer's translation: "the"

Smith's translation: "now this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham, these virgins were offered up because of their virtue they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar."³⁴

Richard Parker, likewise identifies Smith's Book of Abraham papyri as the Book of Breathings.³⁵

These results are absolutely devastating to Mormonism. Joseph Smith did not have the faintest idea of what he was doing while he was translating the papyri into the Book of Abraham. This certainly brings into question his ability to translate the gold plates into the Book of Mormon, since both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham were in "Reformed Egyptian."

 

Attempts by Mormons to answer the Book of Abraham problem fail

Mormon missionaries who come to your door will be stunned when you bring up the problem with the Book of Abraham. Some are completely unaware that such a problem exists. Others have heard of a "tension" but are unaware of its magnitude. Mormon scholars also have not had much success in their attempts to provide an explanation for the problem. Here are a few of the most common responses:  "We do not have the original papyri which Joseph Smith used for the Book of Abraham. They remain lost." Klaus Baer, however, has proven that we do have them in our possession today. (See Footnote 23). Furthermore, they are identical to reproductions that appeared in the Mormon newspaper, Times and Seasons. (See as examples, March 1, 1842 and May 16, 1842.)

"If you compare the Book of Abraham with other ancient writings about Abraham such as Jewish Midrash, the Genesis Apocryphon (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls), the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham, and the Book of Enoch, you will find their stories agree on a number of points. This is remarkable because Joseph Smith would have had no way of knowing about these other Abrahamic writings in 1842. They either had not yet arrived in the United States or were still undiscovered. So Joseph Smith could not have made it up." Jewish Midrash includes stories that took parts of the Old Testament and attempted to make them relevant to a different time as well as provide solutions to questions unanswered in the Old Testament. Midrash began to be developed before the completion of the Old Testament and continued up until no later than the fifth century A.D.³⁶   While it is true that large volumes of Midrashim did not appear in print until the late nineteenth to early twentieth century,³⁷  for nearly two thousand years much Midrashim were orally transferred from one generation to another. Many were printed in little informal collections.³⁸

The first Jews arrived in the colonies of the New World in 1654.³⁹  By 1655 the first Jewish congregation in the United States (Shearith Israel) had formed in Joseph Smith's home state of New York.⁴⁰ Nearly two hundred years later, Smith was engaged in learning Hebrew. The Mormon Church hired a prominent Jewish professor, Joshua Seixas, to teach Smith and the Mormon high Elders.⁴¹ Since Midrash existed in the United States during Smith's day (unquestionably in oral form) and Smith lived relatively close to the nation's first Jewish congregation, it is easy to see where Smith may have obtained his source. Miraculous knowledge on Smith's part was not necessary.

What about these other writings? I have had Mormons tell me that there are ancient writings including one from the Dead Sea Scrolls that confirm the authenticity of the Book of Abraham because the stories are very similar. One prominent Mormon scholar claimed that the books mentioned above have many parallels to the Book of Abraham and, thus, confirm that Joseph Smith received the translation of the Book of Abraham through divine inspiration, because he could not have possibly known these accounts in his day. I must admit that his argument sounded pretty convincing until I went to the library, obtained, and read copies of these writings.⁴²  Here are the "many," "very similar" parallels:

The Book of Abraham and Genesis Apocryphon both speak of Abraham going to Egypt. However, the Bible does as well. So there is no uniqueness since Joseph Smith was well versed in the Bible.

The Book of Abraham, Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Testament of Abraham all speak of an attempt on Abraham's life. However, the context in each rules out any parallel. In the Book of Abraham, a pagan priest attempts to sacrifice Abraham to the Egyptian gods in Abraham's homeland. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, he fights with an evil spirit. In the Testament of Abraham, it is time for Abraham's natural death. He refuses the requests of the archangel, Michael, to accompany him to Paradise.

The Book of Abraham and the Apocalypse of Abraham both speak of God's promise to make a nation out of Abraham's descendants. However, the Bible gives an account of this as well. So there is no uniqueness since Joseph Smith knew the Bible.

The Book of Abraham says that God instructed Abraham to lie to Pharaoh concerning his wife in order to save his own life in Egypt. The Genesis Apocryphon does provide perhaps our only true parallel. It says that Abraham had a parabolic dream (from God?) while in Egypt which encouraged him to lie concerning his wife in order to save his own life. The Bible speaks of Abraham's lie but says it was Abraham's idea, not God's. The Bible never records that God encourages lies. In fact, quite the opposite is true (see 1 Samuel 15:29, Psalm 5:6, 34:13; Proverbs 12:22, 30:8; Hebrews 6:18). Even other Mormon scriptures are emphatic against lying (Ether 3:12; D&C 10:28).

The Book of Abraham and the Book of Enoch both contain a divinely revealed account of creation. However, the stories are obviously not parallel accounts. In the Book of Abraham, God reveals the story of creation to Abraham. The Book of Enoch has an angel revealing the story to Enoch. The Book of Abraham refers to "the Gods" involved in creation. The Book of Enoch speaks of only one God. The creation account in the Book of Abraham has many parallels in the Bible and, therefore, is not unique. The creation account in the Book of Enoch is not at all like the biblical account.

Where are the parallels? One weak parallel is all we have. Therefore, the assertion that there are close parallels to the Book of Abraham in other ancient writings is a fabrication.

"Joseph Smith never attempted to translate the Book of Abraham by his own intellect. He did so by the power of God. The Egyptian papyri had nothing to do with it." Joseph Smith said, "I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham."⁴³  When he identified the papyri as the Book of Abraham, he labored to translate it accurately.⁴⁴ He also put together an Egyptian grammar. Smith's statements and actions make no sense if the Egyptian had nothing to do with his translation, since they implicitly claim the Egyptian had everything to do with his translation.

"We just do not know how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. It was apparently done by a process unknown to anyone but Joseph." While this may be a possibility, the Mormon should be honest with himself or herself and ask, "Does every problem in Mormonism need to be explained away by an unexplainable and unverifiable cause?" Certainly the Bible does not work that way. Is it possible that Mormonism is wrong?

I once asked two Mormon missionaries, "Is there anything which could show you that Mormonism is wrong?" They said they didn't know. So I asked them, "I know this has never happened, but what if archaeologists began digging around Joseph Smith's home and found some rusted plates with foreign engravings buried under the back porch? Let's say they examined them and were able to date them to the 1830's. Let's also say traces of gold paint were found on and around the plates that had since worn off. Would that cause you to question your faith?" They both agreed that it would. We then discussed the Book of Abraham problem. They were shocked. They were hardly aware such a problem existed! I assured them it was real and that Dr. Hugh Nibley, a chief defender of Mormonism, admitted of all the problems facing the credibility of Mormonism, "that's the big one."⁴⁵

The two missionaries remained steadfast saying, "We will believe the church over all findings to the contrary." I asked them if they honestly believed that was a rational stance. "Would you want the folks you talk to on a daily basis, attempting to convince them of Mormonism's truth, to adopt the same type of position that they will not change to Mormonism no matter what you show them? If everyone did that, you would quickly become unemployed." I further pointed out that earlier they said such a problem would justify their questioning Mormonism and that if what I am sharing is true it would be healthy for them if they did.

The Book of Abraham problem is the death knell for Mormonism. In order to understand its significance, let's say the bones of Jesus were found. One day archaeologists find a big box in Jerusalem during a dig. As they bring the box up and clean it off, there is writing on the box that says, "Jesus, son of Joseph the Carpenter, the one who was called the Christ." As the archaeologists lift the lid off the box, there is silence as everyone zooms in on the skeleton of one who had been crucified. On top of the skeleton is a papyrus which says, "We fooled the world, until today," and it's signed, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. Well, you might say, "That doesn't prove anything. It could be a first century Jewish fraud." And you would be right. It could be. But suppose we did a DNA test on the bones and compared the results with a similar DNA test from a blood stain on the Shroud of Turin and they matched! Christian leaders were responding, "We have no answer. There's definitely a match. It's a mystery!" What would you do? The Apostle Paul said, "If Christ has not been raised . . . your faith is worthless."⁴⁶  The Bible says Jesus rose bodily and ascended into heaven. But we have his bones.  "Gosh, I thought it was true. I thought I had a relationship with Christ." What would you do? What would you do? What the bones of Jesus would do to Christianity, the Book of Abraham does to Mormonism.

You can expect your Mormon visitors to be confused. But do not expect them to leave Mormonism that day. If it was claimed that the real bones of Jesus were discovered, would you give up Christianity on the spot? Probably not. You would investigate the story to make sure all of the facts were true. After all, many such stories have been proven to be sensational, embellished truths, or simply false. Your Mormon visitors will probably want to do the same. Encourage them to do so. Unfortunately, Mormon missionaries are not allowed to read any literature that has not been approved by the Mormon Church. However, they are allowed to listen to something that you read to them. So read parts of this book to them. Offer to show them anything they would like to see for themselves. Mormons who are not missionaries are permitted to read literature that has not been approved by the Mormon Church. Offer to give or loan this book to them. I have attempted to document every important point, so that anyone can check these things for himself or herself.

So far we have seen that, contrary to Mormon claims, the text of the Bible is trustworthy. We have also seen that the discipline of archaeology has been anything but friendly to the Book of Mormon. Finally, we have just observed that, at best, Joseph Smith was mistaken to believe that he had the ability to translate Reformed Egyptian and, therefore, render the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham as unreliable. At worst, he was a fraud. In other words, if Joseph Smith really believed he was given the gift to translate (from God) and that the Book of Mormon contains an historical account of real peoples, he was deceived. He was either self-deluded or the recipient of the tricks of the devil. The other option is that Joseph Smith knew his claims to be able to translate the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham accurately were false. If this was the case, he was a deceiver. Deceived or deceiver? Either way, it seems pretty clear that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God.

 

Chapter 5: Mormon Evidence?

So what evidence is there that Mormonism is true? While Mormon scholars admit valid challenges to Mormonism from archaeology and the Book of Abraham, they say the evidences of Mormonism's truthfulness is the Book of Mormon itself, God's confirmation in your spirit, and the number of changed lives. When talking to Mormons expect to hear them say, "I know the Book of Mormon is true because I have prayed to God and asked him to tell me if it is true. And he has confirmed it in my spirit that it is."⁴⁷   In other words, "We don't need evidence. God has told me that the Book of Mormon is true. He has confirmed it in my spirit so that no amount of evidence against Mormonism would convince me that it is wrong." Mormon missionaries are trained to keep on telling you how the Holy Spirit has confirmed to them that the Book of Mormon is true, that Jesus has changed their life and has meant so much to them. Expect it and do not let it surprise you. This belief is extremely difficult to overcome when talking to your Mormon friends. Much is going to depend on them having an open mind. So we have now come to the heart of the matter in talking with Mormons. In this important chapter we will discuss the insufficiency of these evidences provided by Mormons for Mormonism's truth.

 

Feelings are often inaccurate

Have you ever doubted your salvation? Many have at some time. However, your feelings do not change the fact that either you are or are not saved. Can you imagine God requiring a new conversion every time you have a mood swing which results in doubts? It is possible for someone to have doubts about being a Christian, and still be one. Likewise, it is possible for someone to feel confident that they are okay in their relationship with God but in reality are not (see Matthew 7:21-22). Think of the confidence many of the Jewish leaders in Jesus' time had that they were doing the will of God. Yet, Jesus said to them, "You are of your father, the devil" (John 8:44, NASB). The apostle Paul was a perfect example. He believed he was doing the will of God by persecuting and killing Christians, but found that he was actually persecuting the Son of God (see Acts 22:1-8).

People of other religions claim a confirmation from within themselves as evidence that their religion is true. Islam makes the same claims and yet Mormons do not regard the Qur'an or Islamic doctrine as being divinely inspired. Mohammed made claims of visions similar to Joseph Smith's. Regarding the Qur'an he claimed that "this Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God" (10:37). He further boasts "if the whole of mankind and Jinn [good and evil spirits] were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support" (17:88). What supposedly makes the Qur'an even more amazing is that someone alleged to be illiterate wrote it (7:157). Muslims also argue that the number of changed lives and cultures by the Qur'an are evidence of its divine origin.⁴⁸  In other words, the Qur'an is so beautiful in its literary style that all of mankind and spirits working together could not produce it, only God could. The truthfulness of Islam is also evidenced by its incredible transforming power.

Is Islam true? No.⁴⁹ Certainly Mormons do not believe that it is. So one can be sincere and confident that God has shown them the way and still be mistaken, as is the case with Muslims. Satan can counterfeit feelings of certainty and answer prayer.⁵⁰  The Mormon says, "God has confirmed it to me." But the Muslim says the same thing and so do Christians. What is the difference between the confirmations of Mormons, Muslims, and Christians?

Mormons are not the only ones to err on this point. Many Christians, myself included, have been guilty at some point of presenting feelings and spiritual experience as evidence that their beliefs are true. I do not want to downplay the authenticity of feelings and spiritual experiences. I believe much of the peace in the life of the Christian and his or her spiritual experiences are authentic. I acknowledge that people of other faiths have experiences as well. However, I interpret them as having a different source than my own (e.g., self or demonic). The only way to determine the true source is to look at outside evidence. When we do this with Mormonism, the prognosis is not good.

 

Defenders of the faith, both the religious leaders of the Old Testament
and the apostles of the New Testament, used proof, not feelings

The Old Testament leaders encouraged people to remember what God did for them: delivering them from Egypt, the plagues and the parting of the Sea, delivering them in the wilderness from the snakes, giving them manna from Heaven, and bringing them into the land he promised (see 1 Chron. 16:12; Is. 46:9). The New Testament leaders "reasoned" from the Scriptures (see Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19) and offered proof, namely Jesus' resurrection (see Acts 9:22; 17:31). No one ever suggested, "Just read this book and pray about it. God will show you that it's true."

I once had a discussion with a Mormon gentleman who works for the Mormon Church in Utah. I shared many of the challenges to Mormonism presented earlier. He responded that Mormon leaders are continually telling Mormons that they must believe in spite of the facts. I pointed out to him that neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles were hesitant to provide evidence for their claims. I continued, "What the Mormon church is asking you to do is to believe that God worked a certain way until less than 200 years ago."

Be prepared to present the evidence for your position. For example, you can say to Mormon missionaries, "We both are confident and assured that we are correct in our own beliefs. Since our beliefs differ, and they do, or you would not be here today, one of us is wrong. How will we know which one? Only by looking at the evidence outside of ourselves. When we do, we observe that the Bible is reliable and has been accurately preserved. This verifies my position, because I accept the Bible. When we look at Mormonism independently we observe that there is no confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon from archaeology or history. In fact, the lack of archaeological evidence that ought to be there is hurtful to Mormonism. Finally, since Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham has been shown to be fraudulent, his ability to translate the Book of Mormon accurately is also in serious question. Since we both have inward feelings that our own view is true, the outside evidence makes my position much more likely than yours."

 

One can be sincere but wrong

When Mormons sense they are losing a lot of ground during the conversation, they may bring up universalism, the belief that every sincere person will make it to heaven, regardless of their beliefs. This is in accordance with Mormon doctrine. However, it is not compatible with biblical doctrine.

Romans 10:1-2 (KJV) says, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." Paul prayed for the Jews' salvation, although he recognized they had a zeal for God. Their zeal, however, was not compatible with truth. Sincerity is not a test for truth and is not enough for eternal life. Several other verses in the Bible indicate that Jesus is the only way to obtain eternal life. (see John 3:36, 14:6; Acts 4:12; Hebrews 10:26-31).

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true, but because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead.  There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus' Resurrection).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith (e.g., the Exodus from Egypt).

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith (e.g., archaeological problems with the Book of Mormon and the translation problem with the Book of Abraham).

The type of faith Mormons exhibit is the third type and is not the way God works as modeled throughout the Bible. Unless there is a better foundation than feelings for your faith in a system that you hope will allow you to have eternal life, it may be time to start looking around at alternatives.

 

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Application

There is no need to be defensive or hostile to Mormon missionaries who come to your door. I have always found them to be intelligent, honest, and cordial people who need an equally sincere Christian to share the truth with them lovingly. Do not view them as enemies, but as dedicated people who have been misled. Love them. Pray for them. You can make a difference. Mormon missionaries have had the door slammed in their faces more times than they can count and have heard weak attempts to refute their beliefs. Dare to be different! Remember that people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. Here are a few suggestions you may use when meeting with Mormons:

1.  Set the agenda.  Mormon missionaries have several presentations they would like to share with you. I recommend that you, not they, start the conversation by admitting that since no one is 100 percent accurate about everything they believe, it is possible that you could be wrong on some things you believe. Tell them that you are satisfied with being a Christian, but are open-minded and would like to discuss some issues concerning their beliefs that are bothersome to you. Ask them what it would take to convince them that Mormonism is false. When they say there is nothing, ask them, "If the bones of Jesus were someday discovered and they did a DNA test on the bones and compared it with a DNA test on the shroud, and if somehow it was clearly and irrefutably concluded that these were the bones of Jesus, would you continue to be a Mormon since the Bible said that the tomb was empty because Christ had bodily risen and 'If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless?' Would that at least cause you to consider that Mormonism may be false? What if the gold plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon were someday discovered and translated by twenty professional Egyptologists and if their translation bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, would that make you seriously consider that maybe Mormonism is false?" Most will agree that these would certainly make them think long and hard.

2.  Establish that the Bible is reliable.  This is important. According to those who have devoted their lives to helping Mormons find the truth about Mormonism, many times when a person leaves Mormonism they become skeptical because they include the Bible with their other Scriptures. Once they see that their own Scriptures are not from God, they may assume the Bible is not either. Take the time to show them that the Bible is trustworthy. This gives them a solid place to go when they leave the Mormon Church. I have found that most of the time, Mormon missionaries will end up agreeing with me that the Bible is reliable after the evidence in Chapter 2 is presented to them.

3.  Discuss the challenges to the Book of Mormon posed by archaeology and history.  Since you have discussed the trustworthiness of the Bible with them, they will now be able to see a big difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. They will be shocked to find that Mormon archaeologists from BYU have admitted that unambiguous Book of Mormon archaeology is non-existent.

4.  Discuss the challenges to the Book of Abraham presented by professional Egyptologists who have translated the papyri that Joseph Smith used.  This point in particular destroys the credibility of Joseph Smith. If Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is completely wrong, then there is no reason to believe his translation of the Book of Mormon is any better. His claims of having a God-given ability to translate and to being a chosen Prophet of God become dubious.

5.  Be prepared to address the value of feelings.  In my own experience, I have found that Mormons have very little to say in their defense after the above has been pointed out, except that God has confirmed in their hearts that Mormonism is true. Yet we have seen that feelings can be misleading and actually prove nothing. Since you and your Mormon friend both have feelings that your beliefs are true, external evidence is the only test. And Mormonism fails to pass.

In conclusion, when Mormons knock on your door, embrace the opportunity. Show yourself to be a loving and knowledgeable Christian. The object is not to win an argument but to try to lead a sincere person to the truth. Therefore, present the evidence in a patient and loving manner. The apostle Paul wrote, "And the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB).

Christianity is trustworthy because the text of the Bible is pure and much of it is confirmed by archaeology and secular history. We also have the proof from Jesus' resurrection.⁵¹  Mormonism offers no proof of its truthfulness. There is no confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology or history. Translations by professional Egyptologists of the Book of Abraham papyri are completely different than Joseph Smith's translation. If his translation skills are in question for the Book of Abraham, they are also in question for the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholars admit this is a serious problem, and attempts to reconcile it fail. Mormonism's only "proof" is the confirmation God gives when one reads the Book of Mormon. However, this evidence is weak, since people of other religions claim God has convinced them of their own religion's truthfulness. Who's confirmation can be trusted, and why?

When you consider Mormon doctrines such as the plurality of gods, God having been once a man, man becoming a god, Jesus created by God, an afterlife much different than Jesus describes, and salvation requirements, Mormonism presents a gospel much different than we find in the Bible. Therefore, the Apostle Paul's words in Galatians 1:8-9, KJV, may very well apply:  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

These are sober words for Mormons, who are not in a position to be confident of their own salvation. They are zealous for God. But so were the Jews Paul wrote about in Romans 10:1-2 and prayed for their salvation. They believe in Jesus. But so did the Gnostics who were heretics of the early Church, who, like Mormons today, taught a concept of God and Jesus that was fundamentally different than what the apostles taught. They do great works in the name of Christ. But so did those of whom Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:21-23, saying, "I never knew you."

Many Mormons have been brought up in the Mormon Church and it is difficult to jettison what one has believed his or her entire life. Encourage the Mormons with whom you are sharing to pray and think about their personal situation. It is their souls that are on the line. Ask them, "Suppose you learned that some stock you had inherited from your parents would soon be worthless because the company had just announced that it was going out of business. You may not like that fact, but you would welcome an opportunity to sell the stock and get out of it before losing it all. Then you could put your money in a safe place. If you would do that with your money, how much more with your eternal soul! Why hold on to a false hope and lose everything when you have the opportunity to embrace the truth and be saved?"

 

End Notes

CHAPTER 1 — About the Mormons

¹ It was originally believed that the events described in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America.  Most Mormons who come to your door believe this.  However, since no archaeological evidence has surfaced, Mormon scholars also consider Central America as a possible setting.  However, this theory has serious problems, as we shall see in Chapter 3.
² TIME, August 4, 1997. p. 52.
³ Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Mission, 1982).  The Tanners are former Mormons who have written many books on Mormonism and have one of the best known ministries to Mormons.  For information, you may order from your bookstore, call Utah Lighthouse Ministry at (801) 485-8894, or reach them on the internet at www.utlm.org.  Judy Robertson. No Regrets (Indianapolis: Light & Life Communications, 1997).  Judy and her husband, Jim, are also former Mormons.  Jim is a former Bishop.  For information, you may order from your local bookstore, call the author at (602) 833-2537, or reach them on the internet at www.concernedchristians.org.  Henry L. Ropp. Is Mormonism Christian? (Joplin: College Press Publishing Company, 1995).  These books discuss the doctrines and problems of Mormonism in depth.
 ⁴ For a defense of the Trinity, see What to say to Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock on your door.

CHAPTER 2 — The Bible is Reliable

⁵ Bruce M. Metzger. The Text Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 36.
⁶ Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix. From God to Us (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), p. 157.
⁷ A. T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1925), p. 22, and N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 365.  Bruce M. Metzger gives no accuracy percentage but in the Introduction to The Greek New Testament, Third Edition (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1985), he explains that textual variants have been assigned a letter of "A," "B," "C," and "D" to indicate the degree of certainty for the particular variant.  On p. xiii he states, "By far the greatest proportion of the text represents what may be called an A degree of certainty."
⁸ For a complete listing, see Gleason L. Archer & G. C. Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).
⁹ Bruce K. Waltke in "The Reliability Of The Old Testament Text," Willem A. VanGemeren, ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), p. 65.
¹⁰ This was certainly a problem with the Septuagint.  For a brief article on the Septuagint, see G. W. Bromiley, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume Four (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), pp. 400-409.
¹¹ Such changes are obvious within the Samaritan Pentateuch in which the Samaritans made minor changes to justify some of their differences with the Jews.
¹² As is evident in the Qumran tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls which contains different spellings and grammatical structures than the standard Hebrew of the day.
¹³ New American Standard Bible
¹⁴ New International Version
¹⁵ Geisler and Brooks. When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990), p. 198.
¹⁶ The Smithsonian's official statement may be obtained by request to: Anthropology Outreach Office, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History MRC 112, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560.
¹⁷ Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars (England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1989), p. 202.
¹⁸ William M. Ramsey. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), p. 222.
¹⁹ A. N. Sherwin-White. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 189.

CHAPTER 3 — Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

²⁰ Dr. Ray Metheny, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. Address at the Sixth Annual Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 8/25/84.
²¹ Dr. Dee Green, Former Editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter "Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives," in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), pp. 77-78.
²² Dr. David Johnson, Professor of Anthropology, BYU.  In a personal telephone conversation, 7/23/97.
²³ Dr. John Clark, Professor of Anthropology, BYU.  In a personal telephone conversation, 7/25/97.
²⁴ Copies of the reply letters from the National Geographic Society and Boston University were provided by Jim and Judy Robertson of Concerned Christians.
²⁵ Mosiah 1:4; Mormon 9:32-33; Also see Joseph Smith  History 1:64.
²⁶ Joseph Smith. History, verses 51-52.  Hill Cumorah is located in Manchester, New York, about 25 miles east of Rochester.  Smith lived in Palmyra, about five miles away from the hill.
²⁷ A personal telephone conversation on September 8, 1997.
²⁸ John L. Sorenson, Assistant Professor of Anthropology & Sociology, BYU. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 145-246.
²⁹ Dee Green, General Officer, Univ. Archaeological Society. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), p. 74.
³⁰ John L. Sorenson, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No. 2 (Summer 1969), p. 81.
³¹ Dr. Hugh Nibley, quoted by Dee Green. Book of Mormon Archaeology, p. 75.

CHAPTER 4 — The Book of Abraham

³² Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Vol. III, No. 2 (Stanford: Dialogue Foundation, 1968), p. 68.  To order back issues or request a subscription you may write to: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, P. O. Box 658, Salt Lake City, UT 84110 or call (801) 363-9988.
³³ Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Vol. III, No. 3,  p. 111.  In a footnote on the same page Baer said, "The identification is now certain.  It was immediately evident the 'Facsimile From the Book of Abraham No. 1' of the PGP [Pearl of Great Price] was copied from P. JS I.  The interpretation proposed by Joseph Smith for the first two lines of text in P. JS XI corresponds to Abraham 1:4-2:6 . . . . The fact that the name of the owner is identical in both papyri, and that the left edge of the P. JS I appears to fit the right edge of P. JS XI (see n. 15)—that is, that they are parts of the same scroll—confirm this."
³⁴ Ibid., pp. 130-132.  The Book of Abraham reference is 1:11.
³⁵ Dialogue, Vol. III, No. 2, p. 86.
³⁶ Addison G. Wright. The Literary Genre Midrash (Staten Island: Alba House, 1967), p. 51.
³⁷ See Louis Ginzberg's monumental anthology, Legend of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).
³⁸ Dr. Mark Lee Raphael, Professor of Religion at the College of Willam and Mary in a personal telephone conversation, September 2, 1998.
³⁹ Margolis and Marx. A History Of The Jewish People (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society Of America, 1927), p. 603.
⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 605.
⁴¹ History of the Church, vol. II, p. 388.  You may order History of the Church from any Mormon bookstore or call Mormon book dealer Deseret Bookstore, ZCMI Center, 36 S. State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84111, (800) 453-4532.  In an article for Dialogue, Vol. III, No. 2, Louis C. Zucker, Professor of English and Lecturer in Hebrew at the University of Utah said " . . . there is little doubt that Joshua Seixas was the ablest Hebraist . . . in the 1830's" (p. 45).  Interestingly, Seixas was a relative of Gershom Mendez Seixas, the leader of Shearith Israel, the first Jewish congregation mentioned above.
⁴² You can do this as well.  See Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., & Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1996).  This is an English translation of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls available to date.  The English translation of the Genesis Apocryphon is found on pp. 74-84.  For an Aramaic original with English translation including an informative introduction and commentary, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971).  R. H. Charles. The Book Of Enoch (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1942).  Michael E. Stone, transl. The Testament Of Abraham.  The Greek Recensions (Missoula: University of Montana, 1972).  A short summary of the Apocalypse of Abraham with bibliography may be found in James H. Charlesworth. The Pseudepigrapha And Modern Research With A Supplement (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981).
⁴³ History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 236.  The introductory statement to the Book of Abraham is an excerpt from History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351 and says, "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. - The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."
⁴⁴ History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 238, 286, 320.
⁴⁵ Dr. Nibley in a personal telephone conversation with this author on August 19, 1997.
⁴⁶ 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17.

CHAPTER 5 — Mormon Evidences

⁴⁷ Mormons appeal to Moroni 10:3-5 found in the Book of Mormon: "Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.  And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
⁴⁸ Islamic scholar, Ajijola claims that "the transformation wrought by the Holy Qur'an is unparalleled in the history of the world and thus its claim to being unique stands as unchallenged today as it did thirteen centuries ago. . . . No faith ever imparted such a new life to its votaries on such a wide scale."  Alhaj A. D. Ajijola. The Essence of Faith in Islam (Lahore: Islamic Publications, Ltd., 1978), pp. 100-101.
⁴⁹ For a critique of Islam see Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995).  For a debate between a Muslim and Christian, see Josh McDowell and John Gilchrist. The Islam Debate (San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1983).  For an audio taped debate, see Jamal Badawi and William Craig. The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity: A Muslim-Christian Dialogue (Madison: InterVarsity Audio, 1997).  This tape can be ordered by calling 1-800-828-2100.
⁵⁰ See Luke 4:5-7 where Satan offers to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world if he will worship him.

CHAPTER 6 — Conclusion and Application

⁵¹ For a defense of Jesus resurrection, see Michael R. Licona. Cross Examined (Virginia Beach: TruthQuest Publishers, 1998).