EVIDENCES
FOR THE BOM EXAMINED
There was a
booklet - published by one of the sects, the
It is not enough
to identify the cities in the Book of Mormon with ruins in the region for there
are so many spots with ruins that this can be done easily enough. The booklet is suspect when the
The morning star was
held to be sacred to the god and so the people recorded its appearance and it
was linked to the birth of the god (page 5).
This is thought to match the Book of Mormon saying that a star appeared
over
The booklet is
totally unable to say that any of the names of the ruined cities in
Believers reply
that the names have been changed in translation and through the changes that
languages go through over time. But the
ancients used words with vowels and consonants so there was no need for a huge change. We might call Espania
The Smithsonian
Institution has officially declared that the Book of Mormon is no help at all
with archaeology.
In A.A. Hoekema’s book, Mormonism, he argues from the
language and transmission of the Book of Mormon that it is a hoax.
He observes that
God is not likely to give us a new Bible in a totally unknown language,
Reformed Egyptian, that has never been proved to exist
when he wrote the Bible in known tongues.
Mormons would say it does not matter as long as the BOM was translated
right by the power of God. I say one
would expect God to have told Smith to copy the characters that he translated
so that the miracle could be proved. It
would have been impossible for Smith to invent a language and alphabet like
Egyptian.
It is absurd that
Nephi wrote in Egyptian on the Plates when he could have used his native
Hebrew. The Jews were not interested in
Egyptian. Incredibly the Book of Mormon even
says that the Plates of Laban were written in
Egyptian (Mosiah 1:4). Historically, the change from Hebrew to
Egyptian makes no sense. And Egyptian is
more primitive and less clear than Hebrew.
The Jaredites had a tongue that was derived
from that of Adam and Eve and they were extinct except for one man, Coriantumr, when the Nephites
arrived in
Mormon
There is the
problem of the grammatical errors in the original handwritten Book of Mormon
which the Church has corrected over the years.
One verse has
The Jeff Lindsay
pages on Mormon apologetics are the best places to go to see the Mormon answers
to anti-Mormon complaints about Mormonism and to see the evidence for the Book
of Mormon.
The Mormon Church
has to get proof for the Book of Mormon that supports it better than any other
sacred book is supported by evidence. It
has to be able to do better than them in the evidence stakes if it is the word
of God.
It is certainly
true that the Book of Mormon has worse evidence in its favour than the
Bible. “And now as I have said
concerning faith – faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things;
therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are
true” (
Among the
commonest arguments he uses is that the critics moan about there being no
evidence for the Book of Mormon characters and cities and places. He says there is some evidence that some of
the places mentioned in the book have been found. He brushes off the objection that there is no
evidence for the characters on the basis that there is no evidence for the
existence of Cain, Noah, Moses and countless other Bible characters
either. Many of the places in the Bible
have never been found. The good thing
about his reasoning is that if the absence of evidence is a basis for rejecting
the Book of Mormon it is a ground for rejecting the Bible as well. It is nonetheless certain that if you cannot
prove the existence of Jesus or Moses then you cannot prove that they are
prophets of God. They could exist and
still not be prophets so knowing for sure that they exist would still leave
plenty of room for religious faith in them.
Depending on possibly legendary prophets is like using water as an
antibiotic instead of the tablets.
It is far more
important for the Mormons to prove that the journey of the Lehites
in First Nephi in 600 BC happened than anything else because it is reported to
have happened in a region which gets more detail than anywhere else in the Book
of Mormon. We know for a change where
the author is talking about. It is the
Holy Land and Arabia and the
Mormons think the Lehites departed for
Lindsay says that Lehi and his companions went south south-east of Jerusalem
and near the borders they found Nahom and they buried
Ishmael there and then they went east to a paradise place called Bountiful and
there they built the ship that was to take them to America. The Mormon scholars think these places have
now been located. They make a lot of the
fact that anti-Mormons sneered at such a nice place like
The fact that a
place just for burials has been found in the area where the Lehites
supposedly were before they went to America called Nhm
or Nehem can be put down to coincidence for there
were many such places. Yet the Mormons
say this place is Nahom. The Book of Mormon only says that Ishmael was
buried at Nahom and not that Nahom
was just a place for burial so the Mormons are stretching things. Smith knew from his Bible that Nahom or Nahum meant mourning and that was why he chose the
name for the burial place of Ishmael which he made up for he said there was
great mourning there over Ishmael. It
stands to reason that the gentile neighbours were not going to call the place Nahom over Ishmael.
The Jews at that time believed in ethnic cleansing and did not like
Gentiles. Thus the Gentiles would not
have liked them either!
The Book of Mormon
says that Nahom is to the south southeast of
Jeff Lindsay’s
boast that Smith could not have fabricated the Book of Mormon when a site
matching Bountiful has been found to the right of Nahom
as the Book of Mormon said is childish because the book does not say how far
away. There are paradises all over the
place. The place is Wadi
Sayq but even the Mormon apologists use a lot of
maybes when they say this is the place.
One reason they say it is
Lindsay then says
the site supposed to be
Lindsay has the
nerve to admit that Nehem was in some European
geography books but argues that Smith was too much a farm boy to look up the
books and come up with Nahom. So Smith looking up a book would be a greater
miracle than supernaturally learning of the place? I don’t think so! Lindsay says the critics say Smith saw it in
a book while they hold he was ignorant enough in geography to think that
Lindsay alleges
that Smith did not know that there were walls around
Lindsay says a
plausible site for the
Lindsay says the
name the Nephites gave the ocean they sailed on which
was Irreantum meaning many
waters (1 Nephi 17:5). The name exists
in the Apocrypha which Smith read but is a bit different in the Book of Mormon. But Lindsay wants to know why the Book of
Mormon changed the spelling. The two words are phonetically identical so all
Smith had to do was to use a different spelling but which would give the same sound. The truth is that Smith had to change it for
he said that Mormon wrote in altered Egyptian and that the Hebrew of the Nephites was very different from the original. Lindsay quotes Hugh Nibley
saying that the Book of Mormon version of the word fits the Coptic word for
many ir-n-ahte. This is nonsense for there are still
differences. You even have to add m at
the end to make Irreantum. Many is not the same as many waters. Nibley is
inadvertently contradicting the Book of Mormon.
He leaves no room for the word in the Book of Mormon to mean waters as
well as many.
Others say the
name Irreantum comes from Egyptian and Ir is river re mouth na
is many and tehem is water. This shows that you can make bizarre words
mean anything you want them to. You can
pretend to get meaningful matches from a host of languages. There are plenty of languages and dialects in
the region the Lehites allegedly travelled through to
make that easy. And Jews were more likely to use Hebrew words to name places
with.
Lindsay thinks
that the references to a house of a god named Lehi
may authenticate the existence of the prophet Lehi
from the Book of Mormon. There is no
evidence at all that this god is Lehi. And why would Lehi be seen as a god?
Lindsay proposes
that there was a connection between ancient
Lindsay makes a
lot of some of the strange names in the Book of Mormon that seem to have been
authenticated as real or close to real since.
He does not mention that the prophet Zenos a
name which Smith probably made up happens to match the name of the Greek
philosopher Zeno. These things happen.
He said that once
the critics were sneering at the fact that the Book of Mormon calls some Jewish
characters
Lindsay quotes a
Rabbi Yosef who found that the name of the compass
the Lehites used called the Liahona
makes good sense in Hebrew for Lia means round and Lawah means to start or stop and Lon means to abide. But this trick can be played with lots of
languages. And Hebrew dictionaries were
common enough in Smith’s neck of the woods for fundamentalists used them to
find out exactly what the Bible said here and there. Notice too that only the first word is any
way close. For example, if the Book of
Mormon had been written in English it would have been argued that Lia comes from lead as in guide and hona
from hone as in perfect. This is better
than the Rabbi’s idea because the compass leads perfectly. Lead perfectly is a better idea for naming a
compass than round, start and abide.
Abide has no relevance to a compass at all.
Lindsay boasts about the Bat Creek inscription found in
He says the reason
for the difference between the Mesoamerican and Egyptian hieroglyphs is that
the former were inspired by the Egyptian ones but formed hieroglyphs of their
own. So the concept came from
This shows us that
Lindsay is unable to give any good evidence and concentrates mainly on a pile
of maybes, for example, maybe there are no Nephite
inscriptions for the Europeans destroyed them and maybe there is a reason why
there is no genetic evidence that Native American Indians have descended from
the Jews, to refute the critics of Mormonism.
When you depend on too many maybes there is something amiss. That is what evidence is for getting rid of
the maybes so that the whole thing becomes believable. The Book of Mormon cannot be the word of God
when that is all that Mormonism can do.
Using Lindsay’s logic you can defend belief in anything.
There were a lot
of grammatical errors in the 1830 Book of Mormon yet when some of these seem to
match the structure of Hebrew Lindsay says it shows the Semitic origin of the
book. Anybody can write a book full of
errors in grammar and sentence structure some of which concerning that it could
be said that they have been translated from some language or other. Lindsay the Book claims that the Nephites altered the Hebrew and says it was written in
Reformed Egyptian for heaven’s sake. The
Book of Mormon plagiarised the Bible so much that many Semitic features and
structures got into the book. Anybody
who argues that “King Laman, who having
entered into a treaty” is an indication of Hebrew origins and influence is a
crank. We all have heard people who
would use similar expressions. The
problem with all fundamentalist apologists is that they never sit down and work
out the mathematics of coincidence and what statistics say and they end up
seeing amazing wonders where there are none.
Lindsay says that
there is a chiasmus, a way of using contrasts poetically, in the Book of Mormon
proving that the Book did not originate with Joseph Smith. This is a form of poetry used by the Semites
and he says it appears in
There were books
in Smith’s day that studied the poetic style of the chiasmus. To one familiar with the psalms it would not
be hard to replicate. And there are ones
in Doctrine and Covenants created by Smith when Smith was not claiming to be
translating anything but giving the word of God in Smith’s own words.
Lindsay accepts
the view that the entire Book of Mormon story in American took place in
Lindsay claims
that the prophecy by Nephi made centuries before Christ that there would be
cities that sank and were burned and there would be great disasters with
exploding mountains and a cloud of darkness left by the disaster before the
heavens open and the Lamb of God appears to the people. The Mormon Church thinks that evidence of these
volcanic disasters at the time of Christ has been found in Meso-America. Lindsay says that since Smith did not have
this evidence and it has turned up today it shows that Smith was sincere and
Nephi was a true prophet. But this is
based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon land is in that part of
The Book of Mormon
reveals that the ancestors of the Native American Indians are the Lamanites - rebel Jews.
The American Indians have never been found to be carrying Jewish
DNA. Lindsay says that the Book of
Mormon does not rule out loads of mixing with other races that could have led
to this DNA becoming unavailable. He
says that in Rebecca L Cann’s DNA study that no
Native Americans were involved so there is still no evidence one way or the
other.
The next claim is
that Smith could not have known about farming olives the way it is described in
Jacob 5. Any encyclopaedia could have
told him that. We must remember as well
that the account is a parable and Smith did not care if he made a mistake – say
if an olive branch cannot be grafted on to another tree – for the olive tree
was not a tree but a symbol of
The Book of Mormon
wars were fought after harvest in winter and the winter was said to be warm in
one place. Lindsay uses this evidence to
show that the book is plausible because harvest time needs to be kept free for
the sake of the food and people don’t fight the best when too well fed and that
the Book of Mormon land was in central America which is warm in winter. Lindsay offers
Lindsay argues
that a sign of authenticity is that the Book of Mormon knew of the unknown
until recently tradition of the Jews centuries before Christ of putting their
records in their treasury. But he does
not tell us that most people do put their records where they
will be safe and that is usually where the money is. And he does not remind us that the records in
question were the brass plates of Laban. Metal items naturally go where other metal
items are. The plates were treasure for
Heaven’s sake!
The fact that
temples had two pillars in
Lindsay says that
since Helaman 7:10 speaks of a tower in the middle of
a garden that this shows knowledge of the recently discovered fact that the
ancients in
In a page about
the Isaiah Variants in 2 Nephi 12 of the Book of Mormon Lindsay says that Smith’s
translation took a chunk out of Isaiah here but added some differences that
were not in the King James Bible. The
eerie thing about this is that it adds the words ships of Tarshish
to the reference about ships of the sea in the KJV which some believe was in
the original. They believe that for
ships of the sea and ships of Tarshish are similar in
Hebrew which could have resulted in ships of Tarshish
being left out by mistake or mistranslated.
So it seems that he corrected the KJV here by supernatural power. The Mormons admit that it cannot be proved
that the emendation is a restoration of what Isaiah originally wrote. They just say it is possible. So here we just have more Mormon speculation when
they want us to believe the Book of Mormon was able to restore a lost rendering
of Isaiah!
The Mormons admit
that there were books that Smith might have consulted which gave both ships of Tarshish and ships of the sea as possible translations but
think that there is no evidence he could have got to them. When he learned of the translation problem he
just put in both words. I believe Oliver
Cowdery who Smith once got to help him translate, who
was a schoolteacher, played a large role in the writing of the Book of
Mormon. There may have been somebody
else too. The Mormons just assume that
if the Book of Mormon is a forgery then Smith alone wrote it. It is an assumption that is convenient for
them for they heap ridicule on the suggestion that Smith authored the Book of
Mormon and pretend he was barely literate.
But somebody could have done research for Smith.
It is obvious that
it is mistaken to say that Isaiah would have written about the ships of Tarshish and the ships of the sea and then about the luxury
ships for he could have left out the middle reference to the ships of the
sea. To say that Smith supernaturally
corrected Isaiah without using books that he might have used is madness no
matter how unlikely it was for him to have thought of using a book. You don’t say a caring guy who stabs his
mother is innocent because he couldn’t have done it even though the knife was
seen in his hand.
The Book of Mormon
follows the KJV in translating a word for fancy ships as pleasant
pictures. This shows that the author of
the Book of Mormon was only human for fancy ships is, going by the context the
right translation and he blundered here.
I have extracted
the following from Lindsay’s page, Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon? for I consider it important.
Lindsay has created it to refute the view that the book, View of the
Hebrews, written by Ethan Smith was used to invent the Book of Mormon. His point is that though there are several
parallels between the conclusions of Ethan’s book and the Book of Mormon these
do not prove that the Book of Mormon was inspired by the book.
Lindsay goes that
the Book of Mormon matches an imaginary book called Man’s Journey to the Moon.
Numerous parallels
between the history of man's voyages to the moon and the transoceanic voyages
in the Book of Mormon suggest that accounts of lunar journeys may have been a
primary source for Joseph Smith.
Consider the following startling parallels:
Both accounts
provide detailed stories of long and dangerous journeys.
Both accounts
describe unusual compasses which were used for guidance on the journey.
Both involved unusual
ships for the journey.
Like the
astronauts of Apollo 11 and other spacecraft, the Jaredites
travelled to a
Special high-tech
lighting elements were needed for the sealed Jaredite
vessels, just like the electric light sources used by the astronauts.
In both cases,
information is stored on metallic objects - brass or gold plates for the Nephites, and magnetic computer media (iron oxide disks?)
for the moon voyagers.
Both involve the
discovery of a new land.
Both involve a
small group of souls departing from a proud and wicked society
Members of both
groups engaged in prayer and respectful reference to God during the
journey.
Both groups
expressed great gratitude upon reaching their destinations.
The initial
voyagers in both cases saw their journey as having great significance to future
generations.
Both groups
brought objects from the old world to the new world they discovered.
One group was
guided by the strong arm of the Lord, while the other group was led by Neil
Armstrong. Surely this is more than mere coincidence!
Passages in both
texts refer to astronomical terms such as the heavens, the stars, the earth,
the moon, and the planets.
The astronauts
found the surface of the moon to be desolate, free of vegetation, and the Book
of Mormon talks about the discovery of a similar land called the
Some Book of
Mormon names show striking similarity to names of objects on the moon. For
example, the crater "Mairan" is quite similar
to the Jaredite name "
The moon crater
"Godin" is very similar to the Book of
Mormon names "Gideon" and "Gadianton."
The moon crater
"Rabbi Levi" may also account for the Jewish influences seen in the Book
of Mormon.
The Pyrenes mountain range on the moon may explain the Book of
Mormon name "Pahoran."
The moon's Mare Imbrium, the
The importance of
all this is that if the Mormon Church really believes it then why does it lay
so much stress on alleged matches between Book of Mormon names and names used
in the Holy Land and Egypt and thereabouts when this study shows it could just
be coincidence? Also, Lindsay’s attack
on the fact that the View of the Hebrews has
provided the background for the Book of Mormon is unfair. There is a difference between parallels that
will appear naturally and ones that are deliberate. This is a distinction not made by Mormon
apologists when it comes to their holy books.
Smith would and could
have had access to View of the Hebrews.
That counts for a lot. And especially
when it was about the SAME SUBJECT namely the ancient inhabitants of
For example, every
novel will have parallels with other novels in hundreds of details. Sometimes even main points in the stories
will parallel one another. But if there
are too many parallels in the main points you know that plagiarism has taken
place and this has happened in the case of the Book of Mormon and the View
of the Hebrews.
One can see
parallels where there are only accidental or incidental ones and these are not
necessarily plagiarism. For example, if
one book describes a long journey in a ship and another one does the same the
second may be plagiarising in this thing but it is not necessarily plagiarising
if it says that there were lots of supplies on the ship and there were
complaints among the crew like the first because these things will have to said
anyway for they would be expected on a long journey.
The Mormon Church
plainly does not understand how to tell if plagiarism is real or not. The Tanners have found parallels between the
Book of Mormon’s Nehor and the newspaper story in the
Wayne Sentinel, a paper the Smiths subscribed to, of a man called Strang who was executed in 1827. There were more parallels between Strang and the book of Mormon’s Korihor. A story in the same paper is identical and
even identical down to the words in several points. The story is the Sea Voyage and has been
plagiarised to create the story of the Lehites on
their voyage to
The Mormon Church
thinks that the expression “their souls did expand” in
1 Nephi 2:9
supposedly says that the sea is a fountain of waters which is a Near Eastern
expression Smith did not know about. So
the Church says. But when you look at
the verse you see that it was plagiarised from a verse in the gospel of John
which speaks of a fountain of living waters.
It was just a coincidence.
Pity the Church
never points out the blunders like 3 Nephi 13:13 having Jesus teaching the
Lord’s Prayer and saying, “But deliver us from evil”, while the correct
translation is, “Deliver us from the evil one”.
The Book of Mormon just used the incorrect version that was used in all
Churches. Other blunders are Jesus using
words like raca and mammon which he used in
Another Mormon
boast is that at Qumran the ideas of baptism and several doctrines similar to
Christianity existed even before Christ meaning that the Book of Mormon is
proved plausible when it says that explicit knowledge of Christianity existed
before Jesus came in ancient
The Mormons say
nowadays that they believe every verse of the Bible. They know fine well that the Church of Rome
would not have removed the evidence of the clear knowledge of Christ among the
Jews before he came from the Bible and yet it is absent from it.
If you compare the
Bible with the Book of Mormon it shows that the prophecies in the Book of
Mormon closely match many verses from the New Testament. These Book of Mormon portions then had to
have been copied from the Bible by Joseph Smith.
The Mormon Church
says that a line from the Book of Enoch was quoted in the Book of Mormon before
Enoch was discovered. But the Church
translates the Enoch verse in question in exactly the same English wording as
the Book of Mormon has. So the meaning
is the same in both books but the Church translates Enoch to match the Book of
Mormon perfectly and that is dishonest.
You could use that trick to prove that Shakespeare was quoting Stephen
King. The Book of Mormon does not even
claim to be quoting and it is unfair of the Mormons to say it is quoting. And how would believers in ancient
The Mormon Church
which believes that it is the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ
says that when Jesus said two thousand years ago that the gates of Hell would
never prevail against his Church he meant the Church would never fail but did
not rule out men failing to keep up the Church and falling away. So that allows them to say they can believe
what Jesus said and still maintain their traditional doctrine that the Churches
have all apostatised from the true faith.
In context, Jesus said that he was founding his Church on a rock which
was certainly the faith of Peter but not Peter himself and this Church would
never die meaning that this community that holds the faith of the rock will
never die. But it could exist in Heaven
not on earth when the earth apostatises so it does not promise that the Church
will always exist on earth.
In the Jeff
Lindsay pages LDS FAQ, The Restoration, we read many things that cannot
be true.
The Mormon Church
assumes that Matthew 13 with the parable of the sower
says that the Church founded by Christ would apostatise totally. Hugh Nibley the
Mormon apologist says that the parable which starts off by saying some seeds were killed by the sun for having no root and others fell
among thorns and failed to grow and others brought forth great abundance
describes three separate eras. The last
era is the seed growing after the Church is recovered from its apostate
condition. But there is no hint of this
three eras stuff at all in the parable.
It says the seed was sowed once and the three things that happened to
it. For the Mormons to be right there
would need to have been new seed sown for the third era. The Mormons think that the parable of the
vineyard in Luke 20 predicts the destruction of the faith of the Church but it
only says that
Polycarp said the light went out when the apostles
died but he only means that the era of revelation had closed for he certainly
did not think of himself as an apostate.
But the Mormons say he meant the Church apostatised soon as they
died. Jesus did say the Church would not
stay loyal but he did say a handful would stay true.
The Gospel of John
makes it clear that though it wants people to believe in Jesus the apostasy had
already happened for though Jesus tried to establish a Church it kept
failing. Even the Mormons who use John
to prove the Christian Church left the faith don’t go that far for they want to
believe in the apostles. But Jesus
himself in John complains that despite his following and baptising nobody
believes in him (
In Matthew 17:22
Jesus told the disciples that they would long to see Jesus just for one day
again in the future and learn from him and it would not happen and then he
warned because of this they must not run after other Christs. They would only want a new Christ and to
learn from him if they had departed from the old one.
The Mormon Church
has no business using Isaiah 24:5,6 which says that
the whole earth lies destroyed and only a few men are left after a destruction
by fire which God has sent because of transgression and because the covenant
has not been kept as evidence of apostasy for it has not been fulfilled
yet. Also, no religion should be allowed
to incite the Osama Bin Ladens of this world to
destroy the planet by fire under the belief that this is God’s will despite the
evil example of Jesus who had himself killed for
religious reasons.
Mormonism is led
by apostles. Lindsay says that the need
for a continued apostolic office in the Church an office of Twelve Apostles was
shown when Matthias was pulled in to take the place of Judas in Acts. But the apostles were just for functioning as
full-time witnesses to the resurrection and as prophets of God in the full
sense. The Mormon apostles have not seen
Jesus. There is no evidence that the
Mormon Church is right to have twelve apostles.
Mormonism says the
apostate Church which became Catholicism done away with the office. No apostate Church would have done that had the
office existed. It wasn’t in its
advantage to. Besides, it followed
something that was similar in all essentials with a system of bishops and
priests representing the apostles but not being apostles themselves and which
regarded itself as beneath them in authority.
Mormonism says
only validly ordained Mormon priests can baptise. Why did the apostate Church depart from the
doctrine that a priesthood alone could confer water baptism for the Church
loved priestcraft and the power it brought? The Mormon Church holds that this priesthood
power is of supreme value in the Church and the main part of the restoration of
the gospel. Even the Book of Mormon is
no use without it. So the priesthood
then is more important than the Book of Mormon.
John the Baptist supposedly ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to a priesthood which Smith to Cowdery’s
horror later said was the Aaronic Priesthood for he
wanted to introduce a new priesthood called the Melchizidek
priesthood. Cowdery
said it was just the priesthood not Aaronic or Melchizidek priests and that there could be no new Aaronic priests for that was a mimic of the Aaronic priests of the Bible who had to belong to the tribe
of Levi. Later Peter, James and John
ordained them to the Melchizedek priesthood.
Then why do we not have a stronger and better in quality and quantity
witness to these events than what we have?
The Book of Mormon speaks of priests but it does not say that they have
to be ordained by an apostolic succession – that is, nobody can ordain a priest
but a priest. Why could we not have the
neighbours seeing three men laying their hands on them but not knowing that
they were supernatural beings? Why does
God who supposedly does not want to force people to believe not present the
evidence to some in a natural way – perhaps by preventing their eyes from
seeing the glory - so that they do not know that something supernatural has
happened though it has? If God gave as
much evidence for Mormonism as Mormons say then why could he not give more in
the important things instead of scattering it about?
Isaiah 2 is
supposed to predict the Mormon Church headquartered in the
Conclusion
There is no convincing evidence from archaeology or science that the Book of Mormon is true.
Monday, 21 January 2008
A GATHERING OF
SAINTS, Robert Lindsay, Corgi,
A MARVELLOUS WORK
AND A WONDER, LeGrand Richards, Deseret
Books,
AN ADDRESS TO ALL
BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, David Whitmer, Board of
Publications of The Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Lacy Road,
Independence, Missouri
ARE THE MORMON
SCRIPTURES RELIABLE? Harry L Ropp, IVP,
ASK YOUR BISHOP,
Ira T Ransom, 317 W 7th South,
CHANGES IN JOSEPH
SMITH’S HISTORY, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1965
CHANGING OF THE
REVELATIONS, Apostle Daniel McGregor,
GOD’S WORD FINAL
INFALLIBLE AND FOREVER, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel
Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
CONCISE GUIDE TO
TODAY’S RELIGIONS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks,
1983
HOW TO ANSWER A
MORMON, Robert A Morey, Bethany House Publishers,
JOSEPH SMITH AND
MONEY DIGGING, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1970
JOSEPH SMITH’S
BAINBRIDGE NY COURT TRIALS, Wesley P Walters, Utah
Lighthouse Ministry,
LARSON’S BOOK OF
CULTS, Bob Larson, Tyndale,
MORMONISM
SHADOW OR REALITY? Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse
Ministry, 1972
MORMONISM, AA Hoekema, Paternoster Press,
MORMONISM, MAGIC
AND MASONRY, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1988
MORMONISM, MAMA
AND ME, Thelma Geer, Calvary Missionary Press,
MORMONISM, THE
PROPHET, THE BOOK AND THE CULT, Peter Bartley, Veritas,
NEW LIGHT ON
MORMON ORIGINS, Rev Wesley P Walters,
SOME MODERN
FAITHS, Maurice C Burrell and J
THE BIBLE
UNEARTHED,
THE BOOK OF
COMMANDMENTS,
THE BOOK OF
MORMON, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret
Enterprises Ltd, Manchester, UK, 1972
THE CASE AGAINST
MORMONISM, VOL 2, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah
Lighthouse Ministry, 1968
THE FACTS OF
MORMONISM ARE STRANGER THAN FICTION, Charles Crane and J Edward Decker,
Christian Information Outreach,
THE HUMAN ORIGIN
OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, Wesley P Walters, Ex-Mormons for
WHY THE
THE WEB
THE BOOK OF MORMON
WITNESSES
Excellent
refutation of the claims of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon
Barry R Bickmore
www.geocities.com/Athens/parthenon/2671/EC.html
MORMON
SCHOLARSHIP, APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELICAL NEGLECT, Carl Mosser
and Paul Owen,
www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/cpoint10-2.html#mosserowen
BOOK OF MORMON
QUESTIONS
www.lds-mormon.com/bookofmormonquestions.shtml
MORMONISM UNVAILED: MORE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS TRUE. Christian Apologetics and Research
Ministry
www.carm.org/lds/unveiled_defended.htm
THE ABRIDGEMENT OF
D&C 137
www.saintsalive./com/mormonism/falseprophetjs/htm
THE BOOK OF
MORMON: ONE TOO MANY M’S Stephen Van Eck
www.infidels.org/library/modern/stephen_eck/toomany.html
EGYPTIAN
CHARACTERS
www.mormonstudies.com/seer2.htm
This shows that
when Smith translated the book of Abraham he invented hieroglyphics where there
was a piece missing from the papyri. The
characters Smith added make no sense to translators. Yet he translated these imaginary
hieroglyphics! His mother and close
associate David Whitmer spoke of Joseph copying
characters of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon before he translated and
that like the Book of Abraham Smith often produced two lines in the manuscript
with the translation of a single character which shows that the whole Book of
Mormon thing was a hoax.
MORMON FARMS
www.xmission.com~country/reason/farms_1.htm
by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Gathers evidence that
indicates that it was possible that Smith was insane and had manic depression.
DR CHARLES ANTHON
RE AUTHENTICITY OF WRITING SAMPLES ALLEGEDLY COPIED FROM THE GOLDEN PLATES
www.mormonism-web.com/anthon.htm
INTERVIEW OF
MARTIN HARRIS
www.xmission.com/~research/about/docum4.htm
COMMENTS ON THE
BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES: A RESPONSE TO JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER
www.mormons.org/response/bom/witnesses_Roper.htm
A
ridiculous rebuttal that has been taken into account for this book and refuted.
FACTS ON THE BOOK
OF MORMON WITNESSES, PART 1
Excellent
refutation of the reliability of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon
THE STOLEN
MANUSCRIPT
www.utlm.org/onlineresources/bom_early_problems/goldenbible_stolenmanuscript.htm