The Book of Mormon fails the test of canonicity

We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us by a Mormon called Stephen.(*) Click here to see the other articles in this series. You can also go to the Mormonism page to find all the articles that are in this refutation of Stephen’s document.

___

Stephen continues:

I kept my word. We did not discuss the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks for keeping your word, because the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with a chapter about Scripture… But did you really keep your word?… We will see…

Stephen continues:

Frankly, I see no need to do so. Sincere seekers of truth will conduct an honest investigation before dismissing our claims.

We have conducted honest investigations, as you see, and we have proven that Joseph Smith was a big liar and a false prophet. Why do you still believe his words? It’s now your turn to be honest and to do your research.

Stephen continues:

However, since ECs take issue with its authenticity and its need, I wish to issue a challenge to those who have read this text and have been honest enough to admit the discrepancies I have enumerated in the Bible.

We have seen that there are no discrepancies in the Bible, and that you were hallucinating under the effect of Joseph Smith’s lies…

You just know how to issue silly challenges, while you can’t meet any of our challenges. We have challenged you many times in this series of answers to your document, and you still have not met any of the challenges. I hope you will be honest enough to see how all the errors of your religion have been attacked by the Sword of the Spirit and have been destroyed!

Stephen continues:

All one has to do to verify the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is to read it—and I mean in its entirety, not picking out detractor-cited verses here and there out of context and hoping to sway people to not bother reading it for themselves—in its entirety.

Okay. Reading the books of cults is good in order to know about what they believe. But we have already seen how the Book of Mormon is not canonical. For more information, you can read again the article The Canon of Scripture.

Stephen continues:

As far as “proving” the Book of Mormon true, that is a spiritual matter—just as is gaining a testimony of Jesus (which is the spirit of prophecy—see Rev. 19:10.)

Yeah yeah, I know you can’t prove it by the Bible. It’s really sad that you have been deceived to confuse “spiritual” and “testimony” with a feeling in your stomach… You contradict God’s Word, and you still say you have a right testimony… This is real blindness…

Stephen continues:

With all the bold and fantastic claims made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning all the angelic manifestations ushering in the Restoration, should I tread lightly as though on thin ice? We issue a bold challenge to seekers of truth to go directly to the Source of All Truth—the Lord.

Is the Lord the Book of Mormon? You told us to go to the Book of Mormon…

Well, we have seen that Mormonism is a cult that contradicts God’s Word.

Stephen continues:

Moroni, the resurrected Nephite prophet whose image stands above most of our temples to represent his role as the aforementioned angel in the sixth and seventh verses of the fourteenth chapter of Revelation, this challenge in the last chapter of his book, the final book in the Book of Mormon:

“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things (the record of the Nephites), 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 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. (Moroni 10:3-5) Does Moroni ask us to go in with a positive mental attitude of wanting to believe it true? No. He tells us to ask if it is not true. How much more confident can one be than to put the onus on God? And all Moroni asks is that we ask God in Christ’s name with a sincere heart, with real intent to know the truth, and to have faith in Christ.

We have asked God, and He has answered us by His Word, the Bible, that the Book of Mormon is not canonical. We have seen the details in our article The Canon of Scripture. Let me add the following comments to what Stephen hallucinates here:

1. The resurrection did not happen yet, so Moroni is not resurrected, whoever he is.

2. Moroni is not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Revelation.

3. Man may have false confidence. That doesn’t prove anything. The Qur’an also puts a challenge to produce a book like the Qur’an if we can, and states that this is a proof that the Qur’an is from God. Yes, people may have false confidence, but that doesn’t prove anything other than they are blind.

We already know the truth, we are in the truth, so Moroni is asking us to doubt the truth and to begin our search for the truth all over again: We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:19-20)

By the way: have you not said that you will not try to prove the Book of Mormon? But we see here that you’re trying to do it indirectly… It seems you have no better way…

Stephen continues:

Paul told Timothy (1 Tim. 2:5) Christ was our Mediator. And the Lord Himself taught us how to pray with His example that has come to be known as “the Lord’s Prayer.” We ask our Heavenly Father in the name of Christ. Is there anything devious or underhanded about this challenge by Moroni?

Yes. The problem is that you can’t pray in the Name of Jesus Christ if you doubt that you are in the truth. Moroni is calling us to doubt that we are in the truth as we follow Jesus Christ…

Do you know what it means to pray in Christ’s Name? Actually, no man can pray in Christ’s Name unless he is born of God. It is very dangerous to use the Name of Jesus as a magical formula. That’s a disrespect to the Glorious Name. And because the judgment of God does not fall today on blasphemers immediately, many false prophets today use that blessed Name and claim to do miracles in that Name… Their condemnation is just. The Name of Jesus means all who He is. All those who are truly in Christ (are born of God) can pray in Christ’s Name as they are one with Him. In other terms, when you say “in the Name of Jesus”, you are representing that you want only what the Will of God is in a particular matter, and that you are ready to submit to His Will even if it doesn’t please your flesh. When you come to God in prayer in the Name of Jesus, you are declaring that you ask only what Jesus would ask; you come as Jesus. So would Jesus ask God to reveal to Him if the Bible is right? Would He doubt the Bible when it clearly shows us what the Canon of Scripture is? Of course not!

Stephen continues:

For those who are spiritual skeptics,

For Stephen, those who refuse to believe his devious doctrines are spiritual skeptics…

Stephen said:

For those who are spiritual skeptics, there is plenty of archaeological evidence of the geography and the civilizations of the Book of Mormon,

Did he not say that he kept his promise and that he would not try to prove the Book of Mormon?… Well, this is how cultists are…

I can bring many archaeological evidences for any history book or any article in any newspaper; does this mean that book or that article is canonical or inspired?! It’s clear how Stephen has no idea about what canonical means…

However, the Book of Mormon contains many errors. We don’t even need to try to study them one by one, as Stephen said he’s not trying to prove the Book of Mormon is God’s Word. And we have already seen how the Book of Mormon is a human writing and it is not canonical. To study this in more details, you can read again the article The Canon of Scripture.

Stephen continues:

which perfectly coincides with the ruins—both on land and beneath the sea off the Yucatan Peninsula—of the pre-classic civilizations including the Maya and Aztec from about 550 BC to 400 AD.

This has nothing to do with the Word of God. The Word of God is related to the Old and New Covenants, and these civilizations have nothing to do with the original reception of the revelations related to both of these Covenants. The Old Covenant was made with the Jews, and the Jews had nothing to do with the civilizations of Maya and Aztec. The New Covenant was made through Jesus Christ, the real Israel, and Jesus Christ didn’t live in America… So Stephen is talking about things that have nothing to do with inspiration and the Covenants. Of course, he doesn’t have any idea about what is the relation between the Covenants and revelation… But we have explained this in the article The Canon of Scripture.

Stephen continues:

The history of the Olmec civilization of the Gulf coast of Mexico will also enlighten anyone who has read the synoptic history of the Jaredites, a people who preceded the Nephites, in the Book of Mormon from about 2200 BC to 200 BC.

As I explained above, this has nothing to do with biblical inspiration.

Stephen continues:

The fact many early members (and recent members) of the LDS Church speculated “the Land Northward” and “the Land Southward” of the Book of Mormon covered North and South America or that there were not already civilizations on the American continent prior to the Lehi family’s arrival to Mesoamerica only shows how little they or we knew concerning the great civilizations existing in Mesoamerica at that time.

Yes, Mormons are ignorant, but this doesn’t have anything to do with inspiration or canonicity…

Stephen continues:

There is relatively little text in the Book of Mormon concerning pre-existing cultures in Mesoamerica.

Why should I care about this?…

Stephen continues:

But the Book of Mormon does not suggest the Lehites were the first such culture there.

Why are you being so defensive about this?? Are you bothered that the human writing called Book of Mormon is not clear about these issues?? Doesn’t matter! Whether or not the Book of Mormon suggested the Lehites were the first such culture there, the fact does not change that the Book of Mormon is not canonical. These matters have nothing to do with canonicity, as we have seen.

Stephen continues:

According to the Book of Jacob (Jacob 7—BoM), there is mention of a stranger, a man named Sherem, who entered the Nephite culture at this early stage (circa 500 BC), having become expert in their language and religion, who sought to meet and confront Jacob on his religion and to antagonize the Church of God.

Wow, funny fairy tales… But the Church of God did not exist before Christ; before Christ the Covenant was made with the Jews, and not with any other people on earth…

Stephen continues:

Had he come from the Nephite culture, his language ability would not have been mentioned, nor would have been his entrance into their land as a new acquaintance.

I don’t care about this. After I made sure the Book of Mormon is not canonical, I don’t need to examine anything anymore about that book; it doesn’t matter how much accurate it is historically or geographically; what matters is that it is not the Word of God.

Stephen continues:

For an exhaustive study on archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, I suggest you read, EXPLORING THE LANDS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, by Dr. Joseph Allen. It can be found at any LDS bookstore. It deals with secular history of the ancient Mesoamerican peoples as well as a geographical study of the locations in the Book of Mormon relative to known ruins and geography in Mesoamerica. It also deals with linguistic similarities and traditions that have survived the ages that correspond to the Book of Mormon narrative.

OK, I will do that whenever I need to know more about the errors of the Book of Mormon. For now, what I care about is to show that the Book of Mormon is not canonical, and that’s what I have already done. These archaeological issues have nothing to do with canonicity. If the book had any chance to be canonical, then we would have to check the archaeological issue to make sure the book is really canonical, as canonical Books do not contain errors. But we’re sure the Book of Mormon is not canonical, therefore the archaeological issue is not a problem for now.

Stephen continues:

If you want to fairly investigate the claims of lack of DNA evidence linking Native American tribes to Semitic tribes, there are several available articles on internet search engines or from known LDS apologist websites.

As we have seen before, this has nothing to do with revelation.

Stephen continues:

I have satisfied my own curiosity over the issues of haplotypes, (mitochondrial) mtDNA, which is passed from mothers only to daughters, and Y-Chromosome DNA, which is passed from fathers only to sons, and their dynamic nature in just a few generations, all of which demonstrates how DNA links to ancient ancestors cannot be proven one way or another.

You’re trying to prove Joseph Smith was a true prophet by trying to prove the Book of Mormon was accurate, but this is a wrong method. First, if a book is accurate about historical or geographical issues, this doesn’t mean that it is inspired; that’s a very wrong assumption about what a canonical Book is. Second, you yourself say that this issue of the DNA cannot be proven one way or another; in other terms, you’re saying that we can’t examine whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not. So you’re using a method that turns against you.

Stephen continues:

All arguments on lack of DNA relativity between modern Israelites and modern Amerindians have the same flaws: First, they are based on contemporary comparisons of contemporary haplogroups. Second, there is an erroneous presumption the Book of Mormon text names the Nephite civilization as the only existing culture in Mesoamerica upon their arrival.

All of this is irrelevant, because we have already seen how the Book of Mormon is not canonical. However, what you say is wrong, because the genetic info that we are talking about does not change.

Stephen continues:

Besides these facts, EC geneticists who make an argument against the Book of Mormon based on haplogroups and its presumed isolated population must therefore dismiss Biblical genetic ancestry links, since it claims all humanity descended from the same father, Noah, and his three sons and daughters-in-law, barely 4,000 years ago.

The Bible has no such problem with genetics, so I wonder why we need to dismiss what the Bible says.

Stephen continues:

The current genetic variation in race and haplogroups throughout the world presents a problem for Biblical scientists, if they take issue with the Book of Mormon.

We have no such problem with genetics.

Stephen continues:

One cannot dismiss the lack of DNA evidence in the Book of Mormon without also admitting such a lack in the Bible.

The Bible has no such problem with science.

Stephen continues:

EC apologists now insist “Mitochondrial Eve,” whom science places on the African continent around 100,000 years ago, actually lived only 6,000 years ago near Palestine.

Science agrees with the Bible and has proven the Bible to be accurate about many issues that have been studied thus far. Science does not place anything around 100,000 years ago, because operation science cannot study origins. It seems that Stephen has been convinced that evolutionism is science, but in fact Evolutionism contradicts science. It is clear that Stephen has no idea about the difference between operation science and origin science; for more information about this, he can read our short definitions on the following page: Operation science/Origin science – Secondary cause/Primary cause. I say he has no idea about operation science and origin science, because he compares the issue of origins with the issue of DNA; DNA is about genetics and it is operation science, and it can be studied today with operation science, and it proves the Book of Mormon wrong, while the issue of Eve and origins is about origin science, and it cannot be studied today with operation science. But operation science, when used in the legitimate way, does not contradict the facts of origin science.

Stephen continues:

We accept the EC chronological estimation.

You can’t refuse it, because the Bible is clear about it.

Stephen continues:

But their estimation shows how dynamic human DNA is; how we, the human race who came from one woman, then through one man, Noah, evolved at a genetic level far more quickly than science estimates.

The true estimations of science do not contradict the Bible.

Stephen continues:

Video clips on YouTube.com from LDS apologist-geneticists clearly show how impossible it is to prove or disprove ancient ancestry through DNA markers.

Yes, LDS scientists do philosophy rather than science. They are biased, and they interpret the data according to their corrupted LDS theology and not according to the scientific method or according to an accurate historical document.

Stephen continues:

Even after our geneticists demonstrated DNA marker dissipation through scientific argument, some detractors of our faith still expect us to prove DNA support for ancestry.

Show us ONE scientific argument from your geneticists about this DNA issue which proves any of your points concerning the Book of Mormon.

Stephen continues:

Such a demand, after a rational, scientific answer had been given, shows irrational ignorance.

Show us any scientific study here; we don’t need to read about dreams.

Stephen continues:

I leave the investigation to you. And I leave to you the internet surfing over such trivial issues as horses and elephants in the Americas BC—Before Columbus/Conquistadors. Elephants? The stone carvings of elephants on Mayan ruins prove the only way Mayan sculptors could have known of the existence of elephants was if the beasts roamed the American continent or the sculptors were aware of or recalled such life forms from the Old World. Either possibility supports their mention in the Book of Mormon narrative.

Yes, we leave the investigation to the readers. A page that will help you very much in your search for pages that deal with this issue is the following: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Let me just quote two passages from this reference that represent a summary of all what the readers will find out when they do their research on the internet:

Quote I:
Latter Day Saints generally believe that the Book of Mormon describes ancient historical events in the Americas. Mainstream historians and archaeologists do not regard the Book of Mormon as a work of ancient American history.

Quote II:
19th century, archaeological finds (e.g. earth and timber fortifications and towns, the use of a plaster-like cement, ancient roads, metal points and implements, copper breastplates, head-plates, textiles, pearls, native North American inscriptions, North American elephant remains etc.) is not interpreted by mainstream academia as proving the historicity or divinity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is viewed by many mainstream scholars as a work of fiction that parallels others within the 19th century “Mound-builder” genre that were pervasive at the time.

But all this has nothing to do with canonicity. We have seen how the Book of Mormon is not canonical, i.e. it is not the Word of God.

Stephen continues:

So, what have we learned in this chapter? The Bible is not complete. There was a loss of God’s word.

You have not proven any such thing. On the contrary, we have seen that God kept His Word, just as He promised. God is Sovereign and Omnipotent, and He is able to keep His Word from any corruption. The god of Mormonism is not sovereign…

Stephen continues:

There was to be a “restoration of all things.”

We have seen no such thing. On the contrary, we have seen how Stephen added to the Word of God in order to prove his point; he confused “all things” with “the true Gospel”…

Stephen continues:

Joseph Smith was—based on Biblical definitions—a true prophet.

We have seen how Joseph Smith was — based on the true biblical definitions — a false prophet.

Stephen continues:

Given he was a true prophet, the Book of Mormon must be true and the Doctrine and Covenants are inspired modern revelations from God.

Given he was a false prophet, so we should not listen to his lies.

Stephen continues:

I have made my judgment.

We can’t trust the judgment of a confused Mormon.

Stephen continues:

If you are seeking an answer, and based on your arrival to this point I presume you might be, you will have to do the same.

That’s why you need to add to your document a link to our answers to that document, so that people may have all things before their eyes instead of just listening to your deceptions. I know you can’t add such a link to your document which you give to people in order to deceive them, because you are embarrassed before our biblical arguments that have destroyed your silly arguments and which you can’t answer.

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 41 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Book of Mormon fails the test of canonicity

  1. john says:

    I think you and the Mormons are of the same category; heretics.

  2. Welcome, dear john.

    Thank you very much for sharing with us your personal opinion. But it’s the Scripture that decides who is a heretic and who is not. So you need to show us a biblical argument that proves your point. Personal subjective opinions cannot be the judge.

    By the way: Mormons are not just heretics, but they are a sect, a cult.

    Grace be with you!
    Disciple of Jesus Christ

Comments are closed.