The Inquisitive Christian

I recently explained to a Mormon online what the purpose of my blog was. Another chimed in with, “So, you already had your mind made up when you started reading it? Scripture is like a map that tells us how to get closer to Christ. Do you type in an address to Google maps and try to debunk it right away?” This man’s comparison of Scripture to a map actually works quite well. To answer his question, I explained that I don’t debunk Google maps unless it gives me a reason to do so. I’m sure plenty of us are old enough to remember when GPS directions were fairly new. There were too many stories involving people refusing to engage any critical thinking skills at all. They were driving down closed roads, into fast-flowing creeks, and into snowbanks. Their answers were always the same: “Well, that’s where GPS said to go.” When a map is clearly leading you to something dangerous, it is objectively insane to keep following said map. The Book of Mormon is a faulty map. It will not lead you to Christ, but in the opposite direction. Insisting someone read it “with an open mind” then “ask Heavenly Father if it’s true,” is to insist that we ignore historical evidence and Biblical scholarship. If you hold fast to using the Book of Mormon as a map to Christ, well, that’s certainly your decision and I’m not going to try to stop you. My question from the very start of this blog has always been, “Is it Biblical?” The Book of Mormon clearly is not. However, all I can do is present evidence. What you, reader, decide to do with that evidence is entirely up to you.

1 Nephi Chapter 20

The Lord reveals His purpose to Israel. Israel has been chosen in the furnace of affliction and is to go forth from Babylon. Compare Isaiah 48. About 588-570 B.C.

1: “Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.”

For this particular post, I will be using the KJV of Isaiah 48. It reads as follows: “Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.” We see here in Nephi that this verse has been altered in several ways, the most prominent being the addition of the phrase “or out of the waters of baptism.” This is significant because the word “baptism” did not exist in the Old Testament. The Christian practice of baptism absolutely has roots in Old Testament cleansing ceremonies, but the word was not used until the New Testament. This is yet another example of Smith’s use of New Testament language during and Old Testament era.

2: “Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city, but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel, who is the Lord of Hosts; yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name.”

This verse actually reads as follows: “For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The Lord of hosts is his name.” We see more alterations here in Nephi, the most obvious being the needless repetition for which the Book of Mormon is notorious. We don’t need to read “yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name” because we already read “… God of Isreal, who is the Lord of Hosts.” I even looked at the 1611 KJV, and that phrase isn’t in there, either. See for yourself: ISAIAH CHAPTER 48  (ORIGINAL 1611 KJV)

3: “Behold, I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I showed them. I did show them suddenly.”

 “I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.” I’m not sure why Smith missed the opportunity to put that something else “came to pass,” a phrase that appears way too many times in the Book of Mormon. I’ve read some sources say it occurs around 2,000 times. Others say it’s around 1,400. No matter which one you believe, it still occurs significantly more than it does in the KJV (around 450). We can also see that Smith used the more modern spelling “show” instead of “shew.”

4: “And I did it because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;”

“Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;” is how the KJV reads. No significant difference here.

5: “And I have even from the beginning declared to thee; before it came to pass I showed them thee; and I showed them for fear lest thou shouldst say– Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image hath commanded them.”

Notice the change from “I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.” It’s strange that the words “for fear” appear before “lest thou.” Psalm 7:11 in the KJV states, “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.” It hardly makes sense that a God who is angry with the wicked everyday does anything “for fear lest…” This passage in Isaiah is God speaking to Israel and declaring that He showed them things before they happened so they wouldn’t have an excuse to give their idols credit for them.

6: “Thou hast seen and heard all this; and will ye not declare them? And that I have showed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.”

“Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them.” Again, there are no significant changes to this verse. However, the slight changes are beginning to remind me of a junior high kid plagiarizing an essay and changing words here and there to make it look like he didn’t. The rest of this chapter follows this same pattern. There are subtle changes in phrasing and wording, but nothing that alters the meanings of each verse.

What’s odd to me, though, is why this chapter is even included in Nephi at all. It doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of it. According the 1 Nephi narrative, He and his family are all in the Americas now. Why would he be writing down prophesies clearly meant for Israelites who are still on the old continent? The prophet Isaiah lived in the 8th century B.C (see for more information: When Was Isaiah Written: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origin of This Biblical Book – Ministry Voice), which means the book was written before Nephi purportedly wrote 1 Nephi. Why would he be copying some random chapter in Isaiah? It makes no sense.

I personally think it looks like Smith simply shoehorned it in in an attempt to legitimize the Book of Mormon. “Look! See? The Book of Mormon MUST be ancient and from God! It has an almost verbatim chapter from Isaiah in it!” The issue here, of course, is that the veracity of the Book of Mormon rests solely on one man who was a known charlatan (see 1826 Trial). There are more than 100 sworn statements, collected by D.P. Hurlbut in 1833, from early friends and neighbors of Smith in the vicinities of Palmyra, New York, and Harmony, Pennsylvania testifying to what scoundrels the Smith family were. You can read some of them in Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith” in Appendix A, page 432. You can also view them here: Hurlbut and Isaac Hale Affidavits, Mormonism Unvailed,(Unveiled) Ed Howe, Chapter 17. Mormon apologists dismiss this all as anti-Mormon rhetoric, pointing to the fact that Hurlbut had been excommunicated and openly hostile towards the Smiths before collecting these affidavits at the behest of a committee in Kirtland, OH. You can read an LDS apologist’s thoughts here: The Hurlbut affidavits – FAIR. I have no trouble believing he had an axe to grind with Joseph and his family. I’m not even suggesting that Hurlbut (that’s quite the last name) was a virtuous character. However, the sheer number of statements shouldn’t be so easily discarded. If it were only a handful, then I would suggest taking it with a grain of salt. But over 100? That’s another story. Hurlbut’s personal vendetta does not negate the fact that over 100 people who personally knew the Smith family were willing to attach their names to legal documents testifying to their unsavory character.

There’s also the matter of the banking scandal that took place in Kirtland, OH. Smith essentially opened an “Anti-Banking Company” and lied about how much money they had to fund it. You can read all about that fun little excursion here: Kirtland Bank. In Nauvoo, he also practiced polygamy in secret while telling everyone else that he wasn’t. See this for more reading: Examining Mormonism’s Founder: The What-Did-Joseph-Smith-Lie-About Approach – Mormonism Research Ministry. Even the LDS Church admits that he practiced it but only introduced the notion to a few close associates and basically told them to keep it to themselves: Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage.

This is the person the LDS church insists was a prophet of God. This is the person they passionately claim translated gold plates that we don’t have into a book that contradicts the Bible and documented historical facts. It’s a bad map, ladies and gentlemen. And I won’t be following its directions.