Hello, I’m Danny and I was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 60 years. During my lifetime I have read, studied, and taught from the Book of Mormon – which Joseph Smith said “…was the most correct of any book.” The Introduction to the Book of Mormon also states, “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.”
If the Book of Mormon IS comparable to the Bible, then there shouldn’t be any discrepancies or disagreements with it and the Bible. Right? But, over the years I began to see contradictions and inconsistencies with the Book of Mormon that simply couldn’t be ignored.
I decided, if the Book of Mormon is the word of God, it must be able to pass three basic tests: The test of time, meaning a timeline. The test of archaeology and history. And the test of inerrancy and inspiration. I’m going to tackle one test at a time. First, I want to see if the Book of Mormon passes the test of time to see if its is consistent or different with the Bible’s timeline.
Ever since the Fall of Adam and Eve, God had promised in Genesis 3:15 the coming of a Messiah. As promised, 4000 years later, Christ arrived. During His mortal ministry, Jesus or Yeshua as He was known by His Aramaic name, promised He would build His Church – IN THE FUTURE. Now, that might surprise some people to hear that – but you will see what I’m talking about. Yeshua died, was buried, and then resurrected. In Acts 2, His Church was being established through His apostles. I want to remind you that if the Book of Mormon is in harmony with the Bible as it claims in its introduction, then its timeline should reflect that of the Bible.
We find the very first usage of the word “Church” in the English Bible in Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Here, He promises “I will build my church” meaning in the future. Yeshua said this around 30-32 AD before His crucifixion and resurrection.
Let’s compare the timeline with the Book of Mormon. It says in Mosiah 18:17 “And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.” That was written about 147 BC. See the problem? The Bible says the “church” didn’t exist at that time. It was first promised in 30-32 AD to be established AFTER Yeshua’s resurrection. According to the Book of Mormon, people were already being added to His church by baptism a century and a half before Christ was born. The timeline is way off and not at all consistent with the Bible.
We know the first person in the Bible to teach about baptism was John the Baptist. And it was taught that the first people added to the church were not until after the resurrection of Christ. That’s because baptism in the New Covenant unites a person with Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection. Paul wrote in Romans 6:4-5 “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”
In the Bible, only those who lived after Yeshua were expected to be baptized into His death. That is why none of Yeshua’s apostles recorded in the Bible were baptized while He was alive. No one in the Old Testament was ever baptized, into Yeshua’s death and resurrection. Yet, in the Book of Mormon long before Christ they were baptizing people. Doesn’t make sense!
Another timeline discrepancy is when the followers of Christ were first called “Christians.” The Apostolic Record reports that it was in Antioch about 42 AD. Luke wrote in Acts 11:26 “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”
Again, the Book of Mormon has a different timeline. About 73 BC, it says in Alma 46:15 “And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.” Which one is telling the truth – the Bible or the Book of Mormon? They both can’t be right.
The Book of Mormon claims to be congruent with the Bible, but when put to the test of a timeline, it does not hold true. And these were just a couple examples.
Next, let’s apply the test of archaeology and history to see how the Book of Mormon holds up under scrutiny.
The Book of Mormon narrative is full of ancient civilizations that populated the Americas in pre-Colombian times. In the Book of Mormon, we read of great battles where huge numbers were slain. Ether 15:2 “He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of might men, and also their wives and their children.” Ether 15:15 “And it came to pass that when they were all gathered together, everyone to the army which he would, with their wives and their children – both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war, having shields, and breastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war – they did march forth one against another to battle; and they fought all that day, and conquered not.” Ether 14:21-22 “And so great and lasting had been the war, and so long had been the scene of bloodshed and carnage, that the whole face of the land was covered with the bodies of the dead. And so swift and speedy was the war that there was none left to bury the dead, but they did march forth from the shedding of blood to the shedding of blood, leaving the bodies of both men, women, and children strewed upon the face of the land, to become a prey to the worms of the flesh.” All those millions of corpses along with weapons like swords, spears, and knives and metal armor like shields and breastplates – and not a single trace or artifact ever found in the archaeological record of the land. No evidence of these large battles ever having taken place in the history of the Americas.
Then the Book of Mormon talks about the abundance of precious metals found in the New World. 2 Nephi 5:14-15 “And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people. And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.” It also mentions the names of the Nephite coinage and measurements of gold and silver in Alma 11. Again, there is absolutely no archaeological evidence of any of these swords, buildings, or metals being found.
The Book of Mormon claims to have been written on metal plates in “reformed Egyptian,” which is a language that never existed. You would expect the Americas to be littered with archaeological confirmation. Today, there is zero evidence of any of this. The Book of Mormon claims to have fully literate societies – people who could read and write back to 2000 BC. However, we know from archaeology and anthropology that the indigenous peoples relied almost entirely on an oral history.
On the other hand, the Bible is full of confirmed cities, civilizations, relics, artifacts, and architecture. In fact, many non-Christian archaeologists use the Bible’s narrative to locate dig-sites where they uncover evidence connected directly to the Bible story. Archaeology continues to prove the Bible to be an accurate representation of what historically took place. You can’t do that with the Book of Mormon.
The Bible is the most proven of all antiquity. Part of that has to do with the abundance of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have, to help us check history. We have every reason to believe that what we have now in writing is what the first Christians had access to in the first and second centuries.
What do we have of the, Book of Mormon? What we are left with is a recommendation from Joseph Smith in Moroni 10:4-5 to pray for a feeling that it is true without a shred of physical evidence to support that it is true. It says in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” If we are to have faith in the existence of Moroni, the golden plates, or the Book of Mormon, what evidence is there? We are left to depend upon only a feeling or emotion about the Book of Mormon. That can be a dangerous and slippery slope. The Bible warns about trusting our heart or feelings in Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” I’m certain we can all point to times in our lives when our hearts lead us down the wrong path. Proverbs 28:26 “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
Why would the Lord allow us to find an abundance of evidence for the Bible but withhold any evidence for the Book of Mormon? The more the Bible is put to the test the more it proves itself. The more the Book of Mormon is put to the test, the more it fails.
Finaly, I’m going to test the inerrancy and inspiration of the Book of Mormon to see if it’s consistent with the Bible. What do you expect I’ll find?
The Bible teaches that Yeshua was specifically born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:1 “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.” However, the Book of Mormon disagrees with that. The Book of Mormon in 83 BC prophesied that Christ would be born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. Alma 7:10 “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” Some Latter-day Saints will argue that the two cities are close enough. After all Bethlehem is only 5.5 miles from Jerusalem. However, the key difference between Jerusalem and Bethlehem is extremely important in identifying that Yeshua was indeed the Christ.
It is recorded in Matthew 2:3-5 “When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together; he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it written by the prophet.” Who was the Old Testament prophet referenced in that passage? It was Micah! Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he (meaning Yeshua) come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If the Book of Mormon is correct – that Yeshua was born in Jerusalem – then Matthew is wrong, and Yeshua did not fulfill the specific prophecy made by Micah. Which do you believe – the Book of Mormon or the Bible?
Concerning Yeshua’s time on the cross, the Bible says Mark 15:33 “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.” That is three hours of darkness. In the Book of Mormon, Samuel the Lamanite prophesied in Helaman 14:20 there would be three days of darkness. “But behold, as I said unto you concerning another sign, a sign of his death, behold, in that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead.” Then in 34 AD., it was supposedly fulfilled. 3 Nephi 8:23 “And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen.” So, what was it, three hours or three days? That’s a big discrepancy! It’s also another clear contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Then there’s Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:1-3 “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.” The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible by saying Melchizedek did have a mortal father which he reigned under. Alma 13:18 “But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.” Again, which is true – Hebrews or Alma?
Finally, the Book of Mormon does not accurately represent the law of Moses. In the Old Testament, according to Numbers 3:6-7, only those of the tribe of Levi could serve in the Aaronic priesthood. “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him. And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle.” However, the Book of Mormon claims that Lehi and his family descended from Manasseh – not Levi – and offered sacrifice and burnt offerings, according to the law of Moses. Mosiah 2:3 “And they also took the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses.” The Nephites of the Book of Mormon were properly living the law of Moses and performing its ordinances according to what the Bible teaches.
I hope you can see the Book of Mormon is not consistent with the Bible and is not inspired by God. Instead of being another testimony or witness of Yeshua and the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a contradiction in so many ways.
In all three tests, I covered just a few examples of the scores of contradictions in the Book of Mormon. Are you going to simply say the Bible wasn’t translated correctly in these examples? Or are you going to investigate and realize just how uninspired and errant the Book of Mormon really is? The Bible is clear and truthful. It says in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The Book of Mormon fails to measure up to the test and should not be used for “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
If the Book of Mormon is the word of God, then it must be able to pass the test of a proper timeline. The test of archaeology and historical evidence. And the test of, inerrancy and inspiration. In this examination of the Book of Mormon, it obviously fails on all three accounts.
Remember, Joseph Smith said: The Book of Mormon “was the most correct of any book on earth.” And the introduction states, “The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.” After putting it to the test, I hope you can see the Book of Mormon is far from being correct and it can’t compare to the Bible.
I hope this gives you something to consider.
God Bless!