Reviews of "The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon"

Living Hope Ministires (now “Sourceflix”) produced a poorly-researched “documentary” entitled “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon” (at least they are consistent about the quality of their research; got to give them that . . . [cf. their inane "The Bible vs. Joseph Smith").

There has been a couple scholarly LDS responses to this “documentary,” including reviews by Brant Gardner (an anthropologist specialising in Mesoamerica) and Dr. David Bokovoy (expert in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible). The reviews can be found online here:

Brant Gardner, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion."

David E Bokovoy, “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Still Losing the Battle.”

FAIRLDS (now FairMormon) produced a DVD responding to the “documentary,” too, featuring leading LDS scholars (e.g., Daniel Peterson; John Tvedtnes; John Sorenson). An online version can be found here:

Recent Debate with a Fundamentalist

I recently engaged a Fundamentalist Protestant, Desmond Smyth, who is associated with a minitry, "Jeremiah Cry"; on a friend’s facebook page. For those who live in Dublin, he is the fellow one often finds engaging in “street preaching” in O’Connor Street (one example of his preaching on youtube).

With permission of my friend, I am reproducing the exchange in a .htm format; for those who wish to read it en toto, click on this link. It does show the exegetical and intellectual bankruptcy of the more Fundamentalist flavour of Protestantism and the anti-Mormonism it produces (cf. the works of Ed Decker; the late Dave Hunt and others).

Hebrews 1:1-2--does it preclude modern revelation?

Heb 1:1-2 reads:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds [Greek: the ages]

It is not uncommon to have this passage cited against there being modern revelation and additional scriptures being revealed after the cessation of the Bible (although the obvious fact that Hebrews, probably written in the mid AD 60s, was not the last book of the New Testament to have been written and the implications of this fact are usually glossed over; odd that . . .)

A couple of years ago on an LDS discussion forum, I offered the following interpretation of the text against such a charge, which I think still holds up today:

The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!

In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.

How many Protestant Denominations are there?

Many critics of sola scriptura, such as Latter-day Saint and Roman Catholic apologists, often claim that there are 28,000 denominations, though that figure differs on occasion (for instance, I recently heard a Latter-day Saint throw out the [false] claim that there are 43,000[!] denominations).

To be sure, there are many problems, especially exegetical, with sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Reformation (search for “sola scriptura” to see many of the key proof-texts refuted). However, this line of argument should be abandoned by critics of this false and rather pernicious doctrine, as it is just wrong.

Protestant apologist, Eric D. Svendsen, wrote a book entitled, Upon this Slippery Rock (2003), and one of the chapters contained therein examines this claim, as presented by Tim Staples (Catholic) and others who employ this lousy apologetic--the chapter can be found online via archive.org here.

I hope that Latter-day Saints, wishing to uphold intellectual integrity, will retire this argument, or, at the very least, modify the argument and use the proper figure of Protestant denominations, too--in reality, the issue of denominationalism is due to poor ecclesiology, not epistemology per se, within the broad spectrum of Protestantism.

Geology of the Book of Mormon

One recent book on the Book of Mormon is that of Jerry D. Grover, Geology of the Book of Mormon (2015). It serves as a pretty solid contribution to a study of the text in its ancient Mesoamerican context, and is a good supplement to works such as John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book.

Alma 13 and the Coming of Christ

In a page entitled, "Book of Mormon Questions," Al Case, a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under the section, "Book of Mormon Style and Inconsistencies," posed the following criticism:

Why did Alma not know when Christ was coming (Alma 13:21-26) even though he possessed plates and Lehi and Nephi had written precisely when he would arrive?

The pericope reads as follows (emphasis added):

And now it came to pass that when Alma had said these words unto them, he stretched forth his hand unto them and cried with a mighty voice saying, Now is the time to repent for the day of salvation draweth nigh; yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us. And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and  this because of our being wanderers in a strange land; therefore we are thus highly favoured, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard. For behold, angels are declaring it unto many at this time in our land, and this is for the purpose of preparing the hearts of the children of men to receive his word at the time of his coming in his glory. And now we only want to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels of his coming for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my days; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice.

Alma is speaking of Jesus’ “coming in glory,” that is, the “Second Coming” or parousia; not his birth. The Book of Mormon, when referencing the Second Advent of Christ speaks of it, not his birth, as His coming in glory:

And behold, according to the words of the prophets , the Messiah will set himself again the second time to recover them; wherefore, he will manifest himself unto them in power and great glory unto the destruction of their enemies , when that day cometh when they shall believe in him, and none will he destroy that believe in him. (2 Nephi 6:14)

And now many days hence the Son of God will come in his glory, and his glory shall be the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, equity, and truth, all of patience, mercy, and long suffering full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering, quick to hear the cries of his people and to answer their prayers. (Alma 9:26)

And many of the people did inquire concerning the place where the son of God should come, and they were taught that he would appear unto them after his resurrection; and this the people did hear with great joy and gladness. (Alma 16:20)

And he did expound all things even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory—yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wept together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away. (3 Nephi 26:3)

Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. (3 Nephi 28:7)

Would may object that Alma’s use of the phrase, “would to God that it might be in my days” as evidence Alma expected the event to happen in his lifetime. However, as John Tvedtnes has noted:

[T]he opposite is true. There are two Hebrew expressions that the King James translators rendered "would [to] God that" or "would that."[24] In all but one case that I found in the Bible (Genesis 30:34),[25] the situation being described is clearly one that is impossible of fulfillment. Note the following:

"Would to God we had died" (Exodus 16:3); "would God that we had died" (Numbers 14:2 [twice]; 20:3); "would God I had died for thee" (2 Samuel 18:33); the speakers obviously hadn't died.

"Would to God that all the Lord's people were prophets" (Numbers 11:29); unfortunately, they were not.

"Would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan" (Joshua 7:7); they had, however, crossed the river.

"Would to God this people were under my hand! then would I remove Abimelech" (Judges 9:29); the speaker did not govern the people.

"I would there were a sword in mine hand" (Numbers 22:29); there wasn't.

In addition to Alma 13:25, the Book of Mormon uses the expression "would to God" in two other passages, both of which reflect an impossibility of fulfillment:

"Would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God" (Jacob 1:8); they couldn't.

"I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime" (Alma 39:7); the crime had already been committed.

Notes for the Above:

24. Neither Hebrew idiom mentions God. The King James translators similarly added the divine title in another Hebrew expression, changing "may the king live" to "God save the king," to correspond to the formula used in the British coronation ceremony (1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11).

25. Even this may have been intended by Laban as an expression of impossibility.

Marianne Meye Thompson on "seeing God"

If God cannot be seen, it is not because God is invisible, but because God hides himself or because “no one can see God and live.” The possibility of seeing God always remains; but it is qualified in numerous ways, due, perhaps, to the character and nature of God, to the virtue or status of the particular individual, or to the variety of ways in which “seeing” can be understood.

Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus: ‘The one Who Sees God’,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honour of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal, eds. David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond, and Troy A. Miller (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 215-26, here, p. 221.