Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 8


Chapter 7: The Bible
A FAIR Analysis of:
Criticism of Mormonism/Books
A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
 Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

Index of Claims in Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon

The Preeminent Book

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice [1596-1597], 1.3.99.)

Like nearly all other anti-Mormons, McKeever and Johnson constantly attempt to force their own version of LDS doctrine on their readers rather than letting "official" LDS doctrine speak for itself. For some reason it seems to bother our critics that certain LDS issues are either not fully defined (such as Book of Mormon geography, the translation process, or a host of other issues), or that LDS doctrines do not pigeonhole in their view of what LDS doctrine should be. Since official LDS beliefs are not such easy targets as they would like, they define LDS doctrine in ways that makes them easier to attack. This is known as the "straw man" argument. McKeever and Johnson frequently attempt to build straw man LDS doctrines by citing one or more LDS figures, as if such statements represent official LDS doctrine. What McKeever and Johnson fail to explain to the reader (and perhaps they fail to understand this themselves) is that not only do Mormons deny infallibility among their leadership, but we allow lay members and leaders alike, the free agency of publicly expressing personal opinions so long as they don't run counter to "official" LDS teachings.1 The three favorite tactics employed by McKeever and Johnson in their chapter on the Book of Mormon are: (1) "straw man" arguments, (2) "poisoning the well," and (3) repeating accusations which have already been answered.

Early in their chapter on the Book of Mormon, for example, they write: "According to Mormon belief, the descendants of the Lamanites are the American Indian."2 McKeever and Johnson give no source for this claim so it is difficult to ascertain why they've asserted that this is "Mormon belief." While this may have been (and still may be) the speculation (incorrectly, in my opinion) of some Latter-day Saints, it can hardly be called official doctrine--which I'm sure is what McKeever and Johnson attempt to imply with their comment: "According to Mormon belief..."

"Translating" the Book of Mormon

106

Claim
  • The authors construct a straw man of LDS deception by first noting the (unidentified) paintings of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon plates by leaning over them in a prayerful position.3 They then proceed to destroy their straw man by claiming that "testimony from his contemporaries paints another picture."4 The authors then point to the evidence that Joseph Smith used a "seerstone" for at least part of the translation process. They present this information in a manner that implies that the LDS Church has been concealing this fact.

Response

108

Claim
  • The authors suggest misinformation by Latter-day Saint because of the aforementioned "paintings" as well as a comment by Joseph Fielding Smith who said, "there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation."9 While President Smith claimed that he "personally" did "not believe that this stone was used for this purpose."10 The authors claim that he "denie[d] that such a rock was used."11

Author's source(s)

  • n9
  • n10
  • n11

Response

  • Joseph Fielding Smith continued his comments by noting that although a seerstone "may have been" 12 used, he didn't believe that it was. Of course this portion of Joseph Fielding Smith's quote was omitted (which helps the authors's straw-man claim that Joseph Fielding Smith "denie[d]" the use of a seerstone).
  • The reason that some less-informed LDS seem to be unfamiliar with Joseph's use of a "seerstone" stems, in part, from a confusion in the historical record as to what is meant by the "Urim and Thummim." Generally, the Urim and Thummim referred to the Jaredite interpreters that Joseph Smith received with the plates. At other times, however, it referred to the seerstone.13 The authors even seem to recognize this when they note that William Smith referred to the seerstones as a Urim and Thummim.14
  • For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Seer stones

Claim
  • In an endnote to this chapter the authors claim that the Bible tells us that the Urim and Thummim was used to "receive revelation" from God not "for translation purposes" in contrast to Mormon claims.15

Response

  • Are the authors really arguing that Mormons believe that the Urim and Thummim was some sort of automatic language translator done by means that excluded "revelation?" Perhaps they need to re-read LDS history. In the History of the Church, for example, we read that God told the three witnesses: "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God."16 It is telling that the claim was put in a footnote rather than the main body of text, where it would be less likely to be noticed.

The Book of Mormon Witnesses: What About Credibility?

108-109

Claim
  • The authors attempt to poison the well and disqualify the credibility of the Three Witnesses by quoting D. Michael Quinn's comments that all the witnesses were involved at one point or another in divining or the use of rods and/or seerstones.17

Author's source(s)

Response

  • While this might be true (and the issue is far from settled), it is not apparent how this relates to their credibility. Many people in the early nineteenth century were involved in divining rods and seer stones. If they had read Quinn's entire section on this topic, they would have seen many more examples of non-LDS clergy who were involved in the same thing.18

109

Claim
  • The credibility of the Three Witnesses has been dealt with on numerous occasions by many competent authors, all of whom demonstrate that not one of these three men ever denied their testimony of the Book of Mormon even in spite of hardships, threats, excommunication, bad feelings, and persecution. The authors even note that "David Whitmer claimed that none of the three witnesses ever denied the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon."19

Response

  • To the authors credit, they never attempt to show that they did deny their testimonies. However, instead, they try to impugn the integrity of the witnesses by questioning their character as reliable witnesses.

Claim
  • Oliver Cowdery, the authors charge, was excommunicated after accusing Joseph of "adultery, lying, and teaching false doctrines." They also claim that following Cowdery's excommunication he was accused of "'denying the faith,' 'persecuting the brethren,' 'urging on vexatious lawsuits,' 'falsely insinuating [Joseph Smith] was guilty of adultery,' and dishonesty."20

Response

  • You would think, that had Cowdery been a victim of fraud, he would have turned on Joseph and denounced his testimony, but he never did.

Claim
  • The authors point out that Cowdery later joined the Methodists--a denomination, they claim, which "had been supposedly condemned by God."21

Response

  • What LDS source do they cite for such a view of Methodism?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were corrupt; that "they draw near me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith History 1:19)

  • This is a straw man argument. Nowhere does this verse state that Methodism, or any other denomination, is "condemned of God." Anti-Mormons love to claim Mormons have somehow attacked "Christianity" (of course since Latter-day Saints are Christian, the charge is ludicrous); What the verse above refers to, quite clearly, is the "creeds" which are abominations, and (somewhat more ambiguously) "those professors were corrupt."
  • A serious look at the "creeds" of historic Christianity will reveal that they indeed are abominations (or "polluted" per Webster's 1828 dictionary)--that they are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.22
  • Who were the "professors" which were "corrupt"? And what does it mean to be "corrupt?" The 1828 Webster's dictionary number one definition for professor is:

One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

  • It's possible that the "professors" refers to those who formulated the "creeds" or perhaps to those who, in Joseph Smith's day, proclaimed these creeds. In either case, the "professors" seems to be tied to those who supported the "creeds." Of the many 1828 definitions for "corrupt," the ones which make the most sense based on "creeds" which were "abominations" are the following: "tainted; unsound; lose purity; infected with errors or mistakes; polluted." In other words, those who proclaimed the (polluted) "creeds" are themselves "infected with errors or mistakes" for proclaiming such creeds. The Lord's statement in Joseph Smith History 1:19 is a condemnation of the creeds and the teaching of such false doctrine--not an objurgation against any denomination.
  • For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Witnesses/Oliver joined the Methodists  [needs work]


Claim
  • Whitmer, like Cowdery, was excommunicated from the Church, and Whitmer (unlike Cowdery and Harris) never returned. Whitmer, these critics correctly point out, believed that Joseph Smith was once a true prophet who had fallen. The authors attempt to besmirch Whitmer's credibility by quoting something he had written in his An Address to All Believers in Christ:

If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter-day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness. I had been striving with them for a long time to show them the errors into which they were drifting, and for my labors I received only persecutions. (p. 27)


Response


Whitmer's testimony to the Book of Mormon was put to the test on many occasions. In 1833 when Missouri vigilantes were harassing the Mormons, a mob of about five hundred men put David's testimony to the test. The mob drove David and several others to the public square, stripped, tarred, and feathered them, aimed their guns then threatened these men to deny the Book of Mormon and confess it to be a fraud, or die instantly. David Whitmer raised his hands and bore witness to these angry men that the Book of Mormon was the Word of God. The mob trembled with fear and let them go. Afterwards, an unbelieving doctor told David that his fearless testimony and the fear that gripped the mob had made him a believer in the Book of Mormon.29

David Whitmer left the LDS Church in 1838 but continued to proclaim and assert his testimony and the truthfulness of what he had seen and heard. Although he never returned to Mormonism, in the fifty years he lived outside of the Church he insisted that he knew the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Anyone seriously interested in Whitmer's testimony should read Lyndon W. Cook's, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness.30 Cook documents seventy-two interviews with David Whitmer concerning his experience with the angel and plates--the experience upon which his Book of Mormon testimony is based. All seventy-two interviews took place after David Whitmer had left the Church. If he had lost his testimony following his excommunication, he would have had ample opportunity to deny his earlier proclamation. Instead, however, we find that Whitmer continued to assert its truthfulness.

Throughout Richmond, Missouri, David Whitmer was known as an honest and trustworthy citizen by the non-Mormons. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David's hometown, branding David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with "a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on 'the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.'"31

The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who "with no regrets for the past" still "reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel."

This is the critical issue of the life of David Whitmer. During fifty years in non-Mormon society, he insisted with the fervor of his youth that he knew that the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed. Relatively few people in Richmond could wholly accept such testimony, but none doubted his intelligence or complete honesty.32

When another anti-Mormon published an article claiming that David had denied his testimony, David printed a "proclamation" testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterating the fact that he had never denied that testimony. He wrote:

It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book.

I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.33

Attached to Whitmer's proclamation was an accompanying statement signed by twenty-two of Richmond's political, business, and professional leaders who certified that they had been "long and intimately acquainted" with Whitmer and knew him to be "a man of the highest integrity and of undoubted truth and veracity."34 A few days before he died an article in the Chicago Tribune recorded:

David Whitmer, the last one of the three witnessed to the truth of the Book of Mormon, is now in a dying condition at his home in Richmond. Last evening he called the family and friends to his bedside, and bore his testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.35

Following his death the Richmond Conservator wrote:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, "Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?" to which the Doctor replied, "Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you." He then addressed himself to all present and said: "I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....

On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the "Book of Mormon," and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children.36

The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:

Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true.37

Like Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, David Whitmer bore the testimony to the truthfulness of reality of his encounter with the angel and the authenticity of the Book of Mormon until the day he died. Book of Mormon critics have not been able to impugn their testimonies but have instead resorted to character assassination. As history demonstrates, however, the honesty, integrity and reliability of these witnesses confound the critics every bit as much as the testimony of the three witnesses confounds those who refuse to accept the revealed word of God.

Lastly, McKeever and Johnson turn to Martin Harris. They claim that Joseph became upset with Harris when he declared that (quoting from History of the Church), "'Joseph drank too much liquor when he was translating the Book of Mormon,' and that he knew more than Smith did."38

The next paragraph in the History of the Church, however, states:

Brother Harris did not tell Esq. Russell that Brother Joseph drank too much liquor while translating the Book of Mormon, but this thing occurred previous to the translating of the Book; he confessed that his mind was darkened, and that he had said many things inadvertently, calculated to wound the feelings of his brethren, and promised to do better. The council forgave him, with much good advice.39

How convenient for McKeever and Johnson to omit this information. Did they really not read past the paragraph that suited their argument, or did they purposefully fail to inform their audience as to the rest of the story?

Following in the footsteps of other anti-Mormons, McKeever and Johnson claim that the witnesses testimony of having "'seen the plates' is suspicious."40 (True to anti-Mormon intellectual inbreeding, their quote from former BYU instructor, Marvin Hill, on this topic appears to be direct "cut and paste" from the Tanners' The Changing World of Mormonism--ellipses and all.41) They base this charge on a statement by Martin Harris who claimed to have seen the plates with his "spiritual eye" rather than his "naked eyes." Does the belief that the experience had visionary qualities contradict the claim that the plates were real? Consider this: On separate occasions Harris also claimed that prior to his witnessing the plates he held them (while covered) "on his knee for an hour and a half"42 and that they weighed approximately fifty pounds.43 It seems unlikely--from his physical descriptions as well as his other testimonies and the testimonies of the other two witnesses--that the entire experience was merely in his mind. For example, on one occasion, critics charged that Martin (and the other two witnesses) had merely imagined he saw an angel--that he was deluded. Martin responded by extending his right hand:

Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.44

David Whitmer helps clear up the "spiritual" vs. "natural" viewing of the plates. Responding to the questions of Anthony Metcalf (the same Metcalf who interviewed Harris) Whitmer wrote:

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer.45

David, like Martin, had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was so accused, and said:

How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"46

On another occasion in which Whitmer was asked about the plates, the interviewer recorded:

He then explained that he saw the plates, and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable.47

Paul understood the difficulty of describing spiritual experiences when he wrote:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)48

Paul's vision was real, yet he was unsure whether he had the experience in or out of his body. Harris may have felt a similar experience. He knew the plates were real, yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was only able to see them by the power of God. On a separate occasion Harris testified to the reality of his vision. The scene as recorded by Edward Stevenson was instrumental in getting Harris to re-enter the Church.

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, "Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?" "No," said Martin, "I do not believe it." The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, "Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day."49

Historical Problems with the Book of Mormon

After demonstrating that they are unfamiliar with the latest material on the Book of Mormon Witnesses, McKeever and Johnson showed that they are completely unaware of any of the current material available on Book of Mormon studies in relation to archaeology and the New World. Our critics assure us that "while Mormon leaders have insisted that virtually millions of Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites existed during the Book of Mormon era, the LDS Church has no tangible evidence to support this claim."50

In a pre-emptive strike to diffuse the evidence that might be mustered for the Saints, McKeever and Johnson attack Book of Mormon geography by pitting contrasting statements of LDS authorities against each other. While precise locations for Book of Mormon cities are debated, nearly all informed Book of Mormon scholars agree that Book of Mormon events would have taken place in Mesoamerica. McKeever and Johnson try to poison the well of information that might be gleaned from this territory by citing earlier LDS views on Book of Mormon geography. For example, they point out that James Talmage and Ezra Taft Benson believed that Book of Mormon peoples occupied North and South America (known as the "hemispheric model" of Book of Mormon geography). In their quote of Benson, they claim:

President Ezra Taft Benson insisted that not only did the alleged Nephites live in the area of the United States, but that Adam and the "Jaredites" lived there as well.51

The source they site for this claim is a quote from The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson. The astute reader will find that Benson made this claim in 1978 seven years before Benson became President. There is no argument that Benson presented such an opinion, and it's possible that he continued to believe it even after he became President, but for McKeever and Johnson to imply that Benson made this claim while he was President demonstrates at best shoddy scholarship or an appeal to authority--the President said so, so it must be official LDS doctrine--or at worst, deceit.

McKeever and Johnson also quote from Joseph Fielding Smith (who was not President at the time he recorded his views), who disagreed with the early proposals suggesting that Mesoamerica was the land of Book of Mormon activity. To further bolster their claim that the LDS should accept the early LDS views of Book of Mormon geography in North America, McKeever and Johnson quote a 1930 First Presidency statement wherein the Presidency quoted (in part) 3 Nephi 20:21-22 while adding some parenthetical comments. The portion in question reads:

And behold, this people (the Nephites) will I establish in this land, (America) and it shall be a new Jerusalem.52

McKeever and Johnson imply that since the First Presidency signed the statement, that it must represent the official position of the Church. Clever. However, the First Presidency's statement was not a doctrinal exposition on the location of the Nephites and Book of Mormon geography, but rather it was an address on the Church's Centennial Conference--they were celebrating one hundred years of LDS conferences. The quote from 3 Nephi was included to recall the Lord's promise of the gathering of Israel and the establishment of His Kingdom in the last days. The parenthetical reference to America is secondary to their point and was simply included for explanatory purposes based on their early understanding of Book of Mormon geography. In all likelihood (as I'll discuss in greater depth in a moment), the members of the First Presidency believed that Book of Mormon events took place in America.

Lastly, in their attempt to poison the well of genuine LDS scholarship on Book of Mormon geography, McKeever and Johnson reference the supposed Nephite altar north of Gallatin, Missouri.53 Had they done a little homework, they would have found that some LDS scholars suggest that Joseph Smith never claimed that the location in question was the site of a Nephite altar.54

There is little argument that most Mormons in previous years believed that Book of Mormon events transpired (at least in part) in North America. To claim that this was the official LDS position is in error. LDS leaders are not raised in vacuums. Like everyone else they have their own opinions, bias, and world-views. This doesn't mean that new doctrinal issues were borrowed from the environment, but rather that when new doctrine was revealed, it was given in "language" and "understanding" of the person receiving the revelation. (2 Nephi 31:3) Early LDS members interpreted the Word of Wisdom according to their understanding of health and medicine of their own day, just as LDS members do in the twenty-first century.55 Prophets learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" even when learning from the Lord.

It seems natural that early LDS leaders (including Joseph Smith) would interpret Book of Mormon events according to what their world-view suggested for the early inhabitants of the Americas. This world-view, shared by many frontiersmen in Joseph Smith's day, suggested that the ancient inhabitants of Joseph's immediate vicinity were mound-building Indians who were descendents from the ten lost tribes of Israel. Some critics have suggested that Joseph Smith borrowed from such tales and from it wove a fictional Book of Mormon. When delving further into the Book of Mormon, however, we see that such a comparison is not only superficial, but also wholly inaccurate.

It really doesn't matter what Joseph Smith's, or any other LDS leaders' personal views on Book of Mormon geography was (or is), it matters only what the Book of Mormon itself suggests for its geography--and the internal geography of the Book of Mormon consistently presents a limited geography. Focusing on what someone says about text rather than what the text says is poor methodology and not the way serious scholarship operates.56 As Dr. William Hamblin has pointed out, the very fact that Joseph Smith might have accepted a hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon suggests that he was not the author of the Book of Mormon.57

Moving onto McKeever and Johnson's other point, that there is "no tangible evidence" that Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites existed during the Book of Mormon period, our critics quote from a few non-LDS scholars who state that the Book of Mormon has not contributed to the understanding of New World archaeology.58 They also quote from Michael Coe, a Yale professor (emeritus) and a specialist in Mesoamerican history who wrote:

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere.59

While Coe is a respected expert in New World studies it is possible that his scholarly views on the Book of Mormon are based on assumptions that might inaccurately reflect what the Book of Mormon actually says. If, for instance, Coe rejects the historicity of the Book of Mormon based on the previously popular LDS assumption that the Book of Mormon was a record of the Hebrew origins of the American Indians, he would be correct in doing so. This is simply another instance of a straw man--and perhaps an unconscious one at that. It is guaranteed that Coe has not paid as close attention to what the text of the Book of Mormon actually says as someone like Brant Gardner or Dr. John Sorenson who are also respected New World researchers and believers in the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. Without knowing what assumptions influenced Coe's comments it is impossible to judge the accuracy of his claims.60 In 1993, L. Ara Norwood made the following observation of James White's use of the same quote from Coe in his Letters to a Mormon Elder:

So we have a non-Latter-day Saint archaeologist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon due to the lack of "scientific evidence"? Is that significant? If a non-Latter-day Saint individual were to come to believe in the supernatural/spiritual claims of the Book of Mormon, would not that person then in all likelihood join the Latter-day Saint church? And if that were to occur, would not that same individual lose credibility with the likes of Mr. White? It seems that Mr. White operates with standards that are impossible to satisfy: the only credible persons, in his view, are non-Latter-day Saints, who are, by definition, nonbelievers. As soon as any of the several hundred thousand non-Latter-day Saints become believers (which happens each and every year), he feels they now lack the balance and perspective that only a non-Mormon can have.61

McKeever and Johnson criticize Norwood's explanation thus:

Norwood seems to miss the point. Coe is not basing his conclusion on the spiritual significance of the Book of Mormon but on the lack of historical significance.62

What McKeever and Johnson (and actually Coe as well) fail to understand is that it is the spiritual nature that verifies the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Can the truth of the Book of Mormon be tested spiritually? Yes. Can the historicity of the Book of Mormon be tested by empirical means? Technically, yes. Is there enough information available today, with which to test the Book of Mormon by empirical means? No.

There is a ton of tangible evidence for inhabitancy for those areas that LDS scholars suggest were Book of Mormon lands. The question, of course, is: Who were these people? The answer is not as simple as the critics would suppose. There were a variety of people living in Book of Mormon lands, among which could easily have been Book of Mormon peoples.63 How would we know Book of Mormon peoples from non-Book of Mormon peoples? What would we look for? Almost assuredly Book of Mormon peoples would have been absorbed into the existing Native American cultures. In other words Book of Mormon peoples would have looked like, lived like, and acted like the Native American cultures that inhabited Book of Mormon lands. Without finding something like a placard that reads "Nephi slept here!", it might be impossible to recognize Book of Mormon peoples from any other non-Book of Mormon cultures.

As Mesoamerican researcher Brant Gardner has observed, "Archaeological research is still as much an art as a science." Archaeology deals with material remnants--the imperishables. And typically, "different ideologies may share a common material culture." Gardner points out that "interpretive construction" is required of those things that are extracted from an archaeological dig. For example, if two thousand years from now future archaeologists were to dig up pots and pans from a city in the U.S., would they be able to tell if the owners were Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists? "Several people," Gardner notes, "have gone over the archaeological work of previous scholars, and come to different conclusions (Biblical archaeology is particularly susceptible to this phenomenon)." Gardner points out:

The entry of the Israelites into Canaan is difficult to trace archaeologically because they apparently adopted the Canaanite material culture. It doesn't mean that they weren't there, just that it can't be discerned from the material culture.64

While McKeever and Johnson cite Coe in an attempt to undermine the Book of Mormon's authenticity, I don't think they realize that the incomplete picture presented by archaeology can easily be turned against the Bible as well. McKeever and Johnson attempt to paint a picture of Biblical archaeology as a recent discipline that has uncovered vast support for the Bible, despite the fact that "90 percent of the evidence in the biblical lands is still buried in the sands."65

First of all, McKeever and Johnson over-exaggerate the archaeological support for the Bible. For instance, William Dever--a leading authority on Biblical archaeology--has written:

After a century of modern research neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era.66

Likewise, Mesoamerican researcher Brant Gardner points out:

Why is there no archaeological or textual information placing Israelites in Israel during the time period the Bible says they should be there in large numbers?

Why is there no evidence for the Exodus, when science suggests that such a large migration over that period of time would leave some discernable trace?

Why is there no evidence for a military conquest of Canaan? All indications from archaeology are for a peaceful and gradual immigration rather than the Biblical story of invasion.

Why is there nothing in the archaeology of Jericho that suggests fallen walls during the appropriate time period?

Why are the stories of the patriarchs in the Bible full of camels when the camel is now known to have been introduced well after 1000 BCE,67 or 1000 years too late for the Biblical stories?

Why is it that virtually nothing prior to the reign of Josiah can be seen to have any archaeological corroboration?

You may check the validity of the questions in Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed, which is a recently published account of the current state of Biblical archaeology. Older accounts that have been found to be wrong may not be cited as evidence.

Frankly, what I find most interesting is that in the years since B.H. Roberts did his study [on difficult Book of Mormon issues], archaeological and ethnohistorical work has significantly improved the picture of the Book of Mormon as an historical document fitting a particular time and place, while the research into Biblical archaeology has had the opposite effect.68

There are a number of non-Bible-believing scholars who reject the Bible, in part, because of lack of evidence to support the historical claims made by the Bible. Yet McKeever and Johnson find fault with the Saints for not rejecting the Book of Mormon because non-Book-of-Mormon-believing scholars do not accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon for the same reasons. Such criticisms apply a double set of standards.69

McKeever and Johnson seem also to be unfamiliar with Dr. William Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon."70 As Hamblin points out (and as McKeever and Johnson's previous quote affirms), the kind of evidence that supports the Bible is that of place names, or toponyms. In biblical lands, we have the advantage that several toponyms are the same today as in biblical times. We seldom have this luxury for New World toponyms.71 To complicate matters, "Mesoamerican toponyms were often translated between languages rather than transliterated phonetically." Thus, "in Nahuatl [Aztec] ... 'Hill of the Bird' is Tototepec (tototl = bird + tepetl = hill) and 'Hill of the Jaguar' is Ocelotepec (ocelotl + tepetl). ... 'Hill of the Bird' in Mixtec would be Yucu Dzaa, from yucu (hill) + dzaa (bird); 'Hill of the Jaguar' in Zapotec would be Tani Guebeche, from tani (hill) + guebeche (fierce carnivore)." Therefore, even for those few sites for which a phonetic reading can be determined, the pronunciation of the glyphs seems to have been language-dependent. A Zapotec speaker would pronounce the glyph for the place-name of the same site differently than a Mixtec, and both would be different from Nephite pronunciation, even though all three could theoretically be written with variations of the same glyph.72

Lastly, some scholars disagree as to what the glyphs symbolize. Some suggest "city-name proper, the ruling dynasty of the city, or the patron god of the city." And only about 40, of hundreds of Mayan sites, had their own emblem glyphs!73 Although some of these "permit tentative phonetic reconstruction, 'others are very abstract conventions, making it more difficult to suggest origins, meanings, and phonetic readings.' Of those few that can be given tentative phonetic readings, many do not match the sixteenth-century Maya names. 'Some places...have kept the same name for 1,500 years, while others...have lost their prehispanic names.' Taken together, all of these problems mean that we will most likely never be able to learn the Pre-Classic names for most ancient Mesoamerican sites. Barring further discoveries, we will therefore never learn from inscriptional evidence how the names of Mesoamerican cities were pronounced in Book of Mormon times."74

Where does this leave us with Book of Mormon archaeological studies? There is actually a growing body of literature that demonstrates that a number of the things mentioned casually in the Book of Mormon find real world support. This includes support from both the Old and New Worlds--details of which Joseph Smith would not have likely known. John Sorenson's studies on the ancient New World or the current research involving the ancient Near Eastern place name (and Book of Mormon place name) of NHM, are good examples.75 Furthermore, the question seems to be not so much, "Do archaeological findings support the Book of Mormon?" but rather, "Do archaeological findings contradict the Book of Mormon?" The answer is no. Current studies indicate that the Book of Mormon fit comfortably and neatly in an ancient New World setting. There are no major areas of disagreement between the archaeological information available in Mesoamerican regions and the cultures and geographies described in the Book of Mormon. In some instances, descriptions presented in the Book of Mormon are uniquely at home in Mesoamerica and in no other part of the world. For example, Brant Gardner has pointed out that Helaman 3:7 describes a unique location with the following characteristics:

1) [A] location where houses were built of cement.

2) [A] location where there were no trees when the houses were being built of cement (its OK to have trees before or after, because the text doesn't say anything about that).

3) This place must be inhabited anywhere between 100 BC to 100 AD - this gives you a pretty wide target to shoot for . . .

[4)] If this one is too simple and you find it too quickly, now try to find the same cement/no trees location within say a thousand miles of a volcano that erupted during the same time period.76

As Gardner explains, the Book of Mormon describes (albeit in a casual way) a location with very specific details. If we wanted to match this description to a real world location, there are certain requirements that must be met. How many possible locations throughout the world might pose as candidates? Gardner notes that as far as he is aware, there seems to be only one such location--Teotihuacan in Mesoamerica.

That city is heavily built of a cement plaster (called cement in the literature). It is also understood that the area had been deforested. As a final connection, the city is inhabited during the time periods noted for the Book of Mormon. Teotihuacan is somewhat unique in this building material. The cities in the south had deforested large sections to create a stucco, but ceased that practice in favor of stone carving (probably as a result of the deforestation around the cities with the heavy stucco use--none of which are in the proposed area of the Book of Mormon lands).

To complete the scenario, there is a massive volcanic explosion, which destroyed Cuicuilco (and others) and created a major exodus that greatly increased the population of Teotihuacan. That event is dated to approximately 1-50 AD. There is an indication that this particular time period may have been part of a major geological upheaval, as there was another major volcanic eruption further south that wreaked great destruction. The combination of the volcanic activities during that time period would have been memorable.77

No other city seems to meet the requirements of the information presented in Helaman, as does Teotihuacan. What are the odds that Joseph Smith could have authored this information on his own? Here we find a city which matches the text of the Book of Mormon--a city which meets the standards imposed by the text; which was occupied during the correct time period; and is located in the very heart of what most LDS scholars agree were Book of Mormon lands. Fulness of the Gospel

Unbelievably, McKeever and Johnson include this hoary anti-Mormon chestnut into their already embarrassing chapter on the Book of Mormon. After citing Ezra Taft Benson's comments on the witness provided by the Book of Mormon, McKeever and Johnson write, "In other words, whatever is necessary in order to achieve complete salvation should be found in the pages of the Book of Mormon."78 If these critics had stopped here, there would not have been a problem. They don't stop with the general understanding of the relationship between salvation and the teachings of the Book of Mormon, however. Instead, they try to create a new straw man by quoting Matthias F. Cowley in the April 1902 conference.

As we live near to God in all aspects, so shall we be entitled to the companionship, and according to our faithfulness, a greater measure of the Holy Spirit, that will give us a better understanding of the things of God, qualify us to live nearer unto God, and consequently too secure unto ourselves a greater exaltation in His presence.79

McKeever and Johnson read into Cowley's quote that, "getting nearer to God is the same as exaltation." They also quote Joseph Smith's statement that "a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its [Book of Mormon] precepts, than by any other book."80 By juxtapositioning different truths, McKeever and Johnson are able to construct a straw man that, although unrecognizable as actually LDS theology, meets the requirements of their claim. Based on this straw man they can charge that "the Book of Mormon should contain everything Latter-day Saints need to guide them into the presence of God."81 Ironically, this last sentence is correct. The Book of Mormon does "contain everything Latter-day Saints need to guide them into the presence of God [the Celestial Kingdom]." McKeever and Johnson are unable to make a coherent argument because they either don't know enough about their subject matter or because they are simply grasping as straws (or in this case, a "straw man").

How is "nearer to God" used in LDS discussion? It is used in much the same way that the phrase is used in non-LDS discourse. It usually means that someone is becoming more spiritual, more Christ-like, and perhaps more in-tune with the will of the Lord. Ezra Taft Benson, for instance said: "I have a vision of the whole church getting nearer to God by abiding the precepts of the Book of Mormon."82

Bishop C.A. Madsen wrote in the Improvement Era (the official LDS periodical of the day) that the beauty of God's creations (such as the flowers) "bring you nearer to God" as a witness to God's "wonderful workmanship."83

The editors of the Improvement Era tell their LDS readers that prayer, offered in unselfish, and humble inquiry to the Lord "brings man nearer to God and helps him to conquer his baser self, by creating in his heart love for others."84 According to McKeever and Johnson such prayers must mean sudden exaltation! And using McKeever and Johnson's definition of "nearer to God," the highest level of the celestial kingdom must be full of musicians, for J. Reuben Clark said, "A man can get nearer to God by music than any other method except prayer."85

Typical of anti-Mormon inbreeding, McKeever and Johnson are not the first anti-Mormons who have claimed that the Book of Mormon does not contain the fulness of the Gospel. They quote, in fact, Dr. Daniel Peterson who has responded to this charge from other Mormon critics. Dr. Peterson pointed out that "in its most basic sense" the word gospel "represents a six-point formula including repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, faith, endurance to the end, and eternal life."86 McKeever and Johnson respond by claiming that contrary to Peterson's "opinion," Bruce McConkie taught that the gospel "embraces all of the laws, principals, doctrines, rites, ordinances, acts, powers, authorities, and keys necessary to save and exalt men in the highest heaven hereafter."87

It's amazing as to what lengths our critics will go in redefining LDS theology in order to suit their arguments. Peterson and McConkie are both correct. There is no conflict. As Dr. Peterson had written (which was quoted by McKeever and Johnson), the Book of Mormon uses the term "gospel" in "its most basic sense." McConkie, on the other hand, is speaking of the gospel in its more complete sense.

An analogous term might be "family." When a friend asks, "How's your family?" I know he's asking about my wife and kids--my "basic" family unit. When I was asked the same question while in my adolescence I knew they were asking about my parents and siblings--my "basic" family unit at that time. When I go to a family reunion, however, I gather with my more "complete" family, which includes parents, spouse, children, grandchildren, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. The use of the term "family" is correct in all of scenarios above. So likewise with "gospel."

McKeever and Johnson have either an incredibly shallow understanding of LDS theology or they stoop to subterfuge in an attempt to win an argument. There is no excuse for such confusion over LDS terminology with readily available works such as the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Let's clarify a few terms based on that five-volume set.

Gospel of Jesus Christ: "[T]he Book of Mormon and other latter-day scriptures define it [gospel of Jesus Christ] precisely as the way or means by which an individual can come to Christ." In all the scriptural passages, salvation is "available through his [Christ's] authorized servants" who (1) believe in Christ; (2) repent of their sins; (3) receive baptism; (4) receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; (5) endure to the end. "Although emphasis is placed on truths necessary for salvation, LDS usage of the term 'gospel' is not confined to the scriptural definition. Latter-day Saints commonly refer to the entire body of their religious beliefs as 'the gospel.' By the broadest interpretation, all truth originating with God may be included within the gospel."88

Fulness of the Gospel: [I]n the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation.89

Salvation: Salvation--the greatest gift of God--is the redemption from the bondage of sin and death through the Atonement of Jesus Christ greatest gift of God. Some degree of salvation will come to all of God's children except the Sons of Perdition.90

Exaltation: To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God--Salvation in the ultimate sense." It is available only in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. "All Church ordinances lead to exaltation, and the essential crowning ordinances are the Endowment and the eternal marriage covenant of the temple.91

Celestial Kingdom: Those who inherit the celestial kingdom are "they who received the testimony of Jesus and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name...and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands...and who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise..." (D&C 76:51-53.) It is within the celestial kingdom "where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne." (D&C 76:92--sounds pretty "near" to God, to me.) "Within the celestial glory are three levels, and to obtain the highest requires a temple marriage or sealing." (Celestial Kingdom 1:260.) "Baptism is for entrance into the celestial kingdom; the endowment and the sealing ordinances are for exaltation in the celestial kingdom."92

So according to one of the newest LDS sources (the publication of which was overseen by General Authorities), the "fulness of the Gospel" which is contained in the Book of Mormon teaches those doctrines--the gospel in it's most basic sense (just as Dr. Peterson pointed out)--necessary for our salvation. Salvation, we find, is received in different degrees, the highest of which is the Celestial Kingdom. Entrance in this kingdom requires faith, repentance, baptism, and the reception of the Holy Ghost--the basic elements of the gospel, all of which are taught in the Book of Mormon. Exaltation, which is the highest level of the celestial kingdom, is received by temple ordinances. While such ordinances are often alluded to in the Book of Mormon,93 they are not necessarily spelled out. Those people, who accept the Book of Mormon and set their course on the salvation obtained in the Celestial Kingdom, are receptive to the additional teachings found in a living Gospel which are revealed in the temple ordinances, and which are necessary for exaltation. So while McKeever and Johnson would love to construct a flimsy straw argument that the Book of Mormon does not contain all things necessary for "exaltation" we find that the Book of Mormon does contain all the doctrines necessary for salvation in the celestial kingdom (the presence of God) and leads those who "abid[e] by its precepts" "nearer to God," or eventually to the additional blessings of exaltation found in the temple covenants.

McKeever and Johnson complain that if the "precepts" taught by the Book of Mormon are nothing more than faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, then the Book of Mormon is not only unnecessary (since the same things are found in the Bible), but that Mormons are guilty of pulling a "'bait and switch'" by drawing people into the Church with biblical doctrines and then advancing (supposedly) non-biblical, uniquely LDS doctrines.94

Charges such as this make one wonder if McKeever and Johnson have actually read the Book of Mormon. The Nephite scripture is not unique in teaching the five basic elements of the gospel, but rather it is unique in the clarity and unambiguity of teaching these precepts. In a mock conversation with a Latter-day Saint, McKeever and Johnson challenge their imaginary Mormon to "support" the claim that the Book of Mormon more clearly teaches these principles.95 Let's look at the five basic elements (for this discussion, we'll exclude the sixth, and final aspect--eternal life) of the gospel as examples. Faith

In other Christian churches, faith is often the single most important (and at times the only important) precept of Christ's gospel. The Book of Mormon acknowledges the importance of faith in salvation96 and recognizes that faith in Christ is a necessary part of membership in His Church.97

While the Book of Mormon professes the importance of faith, it does not do so at the expense of other gospel principles. Most evangelical Christians believe that faith is all that is necessary for salvation. In fact, Latter-day Saints are often criticized for believing that faith and works go hand in hand. The Book of Mormon explains that faith and works are both necessary.98 And "see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works."99

The Book of Mormon also gives us a clearer understanding of the nature of faith. For instance hope is the first step in acquiring faith.100 "And what is it that ye shall hope for?" asks Moroni:

Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise. Wherefore, if a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek and lowly of heart. If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart. ... [And] he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing.... [For] charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever, and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.101

I know of no better definition of faith, and how to acquire it, than from the Book of Mormon:

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. ...Now, as I said concerning faith--that it was not a perfect knowledge--even so it is with my words. Ye cannot now of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give a place for a portion of my words.102

Alma compares the word to a seed that may be planted in the truth-seekers heart. If it is a good seed, and is not cast out by unbelief, it will grow within the soul, enlightening and increasing one's faith.103 Moroni likewise explains that "faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore dispute not because ye see not for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."104

In the Book of Mormon we learn that faith is part of God's mercy. "[F]or if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it. And how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or that cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?"105 By faith, God reveals his word to men, women, and even at times, children.106 By faith the law of Moses was given,107 and faith is the power by which angels appear to mankind and miracles are wrought.108 Without faith there would be no miracles.109

The power of faith can vary from person to person. Some people receive the power of "exceeding great faith" as a gift from God. To some, God give other gifts such as teaching wisdom, healing, and the ministering of angels. While different people may have different gifts, God blesses all his righteous followers with some of these gifts.110 Repentance

While repentance is a tenet of the Christian faith, it seems that to many Christians, repentance takes a back seat to faith. And, while repentance is admirable, it is not really necessary for those who confess a belief in Christ. Some Christians boast that acceptance in Christ guarantees salvation--no mention of repentance (or any other gospel precept) is emphasized. Some of these same evangelical Christians suggest that all sins (past, present & future) are erased with the confession of a belief in Jesus Christ.

In the Book of Mormon we learn that repentance is necessary for a remission of sins111 and those who do not repent incur the demands of divine justice.112 Life is a probationary state, the Book of Mormon teaches--a time to prepare to meet God; a time granted by God to repent; and prepare for the afterlife.113

The plan of salvation, which was "prepared from the foundation of the world," is revealed from God to man according to faith, repentance and holy works.114 Faith, repentance, "good works," and prayer, notes Alma, will open up the mysteries of God.115 Alma explains the relationship between man, justice, Christ's mercy and the plan of redemption. Because of the fall of Adam, all mankind become subject to temporal and spiritual death and would thus be eternally separated from the Father.116 Because of divine justice man was cut off from the presence of God. Mercy could not negate the demands of justice without destroying justice--which would make God cease to be God.117 The only solution was for Jesus to take upon himself the demands of justice so that God could be just and merciful.118 Christ's sacrifice brought about "the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance."

And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.119

True repentance involves godly sorrow--sorrow for unrighteousness. The wicked are often sorry because they got caught, not because they truly want to repent.120 The Book of Mormon explains that there is no deathbed repentance.

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in the eternal world.121 Baptism

McKeever and Johnson are obviously not impressed with the Book of Mormon's inclusion of baptism into the five basic elements necessary for salvation. The doctrine is already taught in the Bible, they say. And while it is true that the necessity of baptism is taught in the Bible,122 how do Bible believers deal with the precept? While some Christians believe that baptism is essential for salvation, or at least a necessary part of repentance, others see baptism merely as an optional expression of someone's faith. Baptism is performed by immersion, sprinkling, and pouring upon newborns and adults. The baptism of some faiths is accepted by other faiths, yet rejected if performed in different faiths. Authority to baptize is needed in one faith, while no authority is needed in another.

As taught by the Book of Mormon, baptism is necessary for salvation123 and for entrance into Christ's Church.124 Not only is authority from God required to perform baptisms125 but also one must be worthy to receive baptism.126 The Book of Mormon explains that baptism is to be done by immersion,127 that it precedes the gift of the Holy Ghost,128 and that baptism is the "first fruits" of repentance.129

In addition to all the clarifications above, the Book of Mormon tells us that little children are innocent and do not need baptism.130 The Book of Mormon even goes as far as to reveal the baptismal prayer.131 Can McKeever and Johnson honestly claim that the Book of Mormon adds no light to the limited understanding of baptism as revealed in the Bible? Gift of the Holy Ghost

Thanks to the Book of Mormon, we know that the mysteries of God are unfolded by the power of the Holy Ghost132 and by the power of the Holy Ghost, the Lord manifests himself unto all those who believe in him.133

Clarifying one of Christ's beatitudes, those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness" are blessed to be "filled with the Holy Ghost," whereas the Bible just says, "filled."134 While the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, tells us that the gift of the Holy Ghost is given to those who follow Christ into baptism,135 the Book of Mormon reveals that the power to give the Holy Ghost was done by the laying on of hands136 by those who had the authority to give the power of the Holy Ghost. We also learn that priesthood ordinations are performed by the power of the Holy Ghost137 and that when the saints speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, "the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men."138

It is not uncommon for evangelical anti-Mormons to ridicule the LDS claim that the truth of the Book of Mormon can be determined by a witness from the Holy Ghost (sometimes calling it nothing more than "heartburn" or the trusting in "feelings"). Since McKeever and Johnson don't think that the Book of Mormon teaches anything unique that isn't already found in the Bible then they should not have any problem heeding the Lord's stern warning to those who would deny the gift of the Holy Ghost.139 Endure to the End

Looking up the phrase "endure to the end" in the scriptures (or variations of this phrase, including "endureth" or "unto to the end") we find some interesting results. In the Bible, all such phrases are limited to the New Testament. The only three verses that use this phrase are the following:

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.140

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.141

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.142

The first two verses are quotes from the Savior talking about persecution. These passages seem to suggest that if those who are persecuted endure to the end (suffer their persecution) that they will eventually see relief and salvation. The second verse, from Mark, also deals with the calamities that are to precede the Second Coming. The last verse, from Matthew, is in a section that also deals with the calamities preceding the Second Coming and similarly suggests an endurance of persecution.

As far as I have found, there is only one other New Testament scripture that deals with enduring and salvation.

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.143

Paul seems to be saying here that he is willing to endure all the troubles so that the Church members can hear the gospel.

While the Bible links salvation to enduring to the end, it does so somewhat ambiguously because of the context of persecution. Generally, most people associate the biblical "endure unto the end" with pain and suffering. In the Greek, however, "endure" or hupomeno means to wait, be patient, or persist in doing while "end" or telos means to be finished or completed or perfect (as a version of this same word is found in Matthew 5:48 which exhorts Christ's followers to be "perfect [teleios] even as your Father in Heaven is perfect [teleios]"). A more correct translation of "endure unto the end" might be standing firm, or persisting with steadfastness until the culmination of the salvation process (i.e., exaltation).144 There are other biblical passages, which allude to salvation or exaltation for those who endure to the end. These verses are generally not as plain as those found in the Book of Mormon where enduring to the end is more clearly taught as a basic gospel principle--part of the salvation and exaltation process.145 The Book of Mormon uses the phrase "endure to the end" (or some variation) sixteen times.146 In some Book of Mormon verses we can see the teaching of this fifth gospel principle--often associated with baptism and/or repentance.

And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.147

And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.148

And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.149

In other Book of Mormon verses we see that "eternal life" or exaltation is the reward for the righteous who "endure unto the end."

And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb.150

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.151

Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.152

While the Book of Mormon, like the Bible, teaches those things necessary for salvation, the Book of Mormon explains them more clearly and more precisely, contrary to the claims of McKeever and Johnson. Other Unique Insights

In addition to basic gospel principles, the Book of Mormon also gives us unique teachings (compared to the Bible) on such things as the sacramental prayers,153 and the fact that Satan--an angel fallen from heaven--is miserable and "he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."154 Thanks to the Book of Mormon, we know that the fall of Adam and Eve was a positive and necessary step in man's progression;155 that the early Christian Church in Jerusalem fell into apostasy;156 that some of the "plain" and "precious" teachings of the Gospel were taken from the Bible;157 that Christ's atonement reaches those who died ignorant of the Gospel;158 that all mankind will be resurrected, regardless of religious belief;159 and that Christ's suffering was so great that he literally bled from his pores in the Garden of Gethsemane.160 These are just a sampling of many of the unique or more clearly taught doctrines found in the Book of Mormon.161

The Book of Mormon is singular in how it was revealed to mankind, and it is a unique second witness to the divinity of Christ and the reality of the Resurrection. In a world where it is popular to brush away Christ's earthly ministry with naturalistic explanations and in a world where even some Christian preachers regard the Resurrection as fictional, the Book of Mormon testifies to the reality of Christ, His earthly mission as recorded in the Bible, and the eschatological teachings associated with Christianity. Lastly, the Book of Mormon is unique in its power as a spiritual conduit for the Holy Ghost's testimony of the divinity of Christ and the truthfulness of the restored Gospel.

McKeever and Johnson's attempt to build a case against the Book of Mormon fails. It flounders because their straw man arguments are mostly rehashes of the same tired rebutted arguments of other anti-Mormons. Harold Rosenberg once said, "The purpose of education is to keep a culture from being drowned in senseless repetitions, each of which claims to offer a new insight."162 If McKeever and Johnson had done a little homework, they could have saved themselves a lot of typing.

Endnotes

Endnotes

1 For more detail on the myth of infallibility see http://www.mormonfortress.com/wordg1.html.

2 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 106.

3 Ibid., 106.

4 Ibid., 106-107.

5 George Q. Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, reprinted 1986), 54.

6 B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1 (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1957), 129.

7 Richard Lloyd Anderson, "'By the Gift and Power of God'" Ensign (September 1977), 80.

8 Kenneth W. Godfrey, "A New Prophet and a New Scripture," Ensign (January 1988), 11.

9 Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954 ), 225-226, as quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 108.

10 Ibid.

11 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 107.

12 Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:226-226, italics added.

13 D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View: Revised and Enlarged (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), 57; 174-175.

14 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 107.

15 Ibid., 295, n. 9.

16 Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 54-55.

17 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 108-109.

18 For more details on Joseph's involvement in treasure digging see http://www.mormonfortress.com/seer1.html.

19 Ibid., 109.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 See for example: Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999).

23 Richard L. Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), 57.

24 Thanks to Kevin Graham for pointing this out.

25 For an examination of what motives Oliver, or any of the other three witnesses, might have had for proclaiming their testimonies see http://www.mormonfortress.com/crit?fr1.html.

26 George Q. Cannon, "The Abundant Testimonies to the Work of God, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by John Irvine 18 September 1881, Vol. 22 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1882), 254.

27 Eldin Ricks, The Case of The Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971), 11.

28 Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 163-164.

29 Ibid., 83-84.

30 Lyndon W. Cook, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Co., 1993).

31 Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 74.

32 Ibid.

33 David Whitmer An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond Missouri: self-published, 1887), 8; italics added.

34 Ibid., 9-10.

35 Chicago Tribune Correspondent 23 January 1888, quoted in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 220.

36 Richmond Conservator Report, 26 January 1888, quoted in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 226.

37 Richmond Democrat, Vol. 16, No. 6, February 2, 1888, quoted in Ricks, The Case of The Book of Mormon Witnesses, 16.

38 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 110.

39 Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 26.

40 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 111.

41 See McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 111 and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 108. With the exception of one deleted sentence, McKeever and Johnson appear to copy the Hill quote, ellipses and all, directly from the Tanners. Thanks to Kevin Graham for pointing this out.

42 The Contributor 1879-1892, Vol. 5 (August 1884) No. 11, 406 and George Reynolds, "Myth of the Manuscript Found," Juvenile Instructor, 1883, as cited in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Case Against Mormonism, Vol. 2 (Salt Lake City, 1968), 40. George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1955), 435-436.

43 Tiffany's Monthly 5, no. 2 (New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, 1859), 166.

44 Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 116.

45 Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887, cited in Anthony Metcalf, "Ten Years Before the Mast" (Malad, Idaho., 1888), 74, in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 86.

46Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 88.

47 Nathan Tanner, Jr., Journal, April 13, 1886 in Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 157.

48 2 Corinthians 12:2-3.

49 Letter of Elder Edward Stevenson to the Millennial Star, quoted in William E. Berrett, The Restored Church, Seventh edition (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1953), 75-76; italics added.

50 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 112.

51 Ibid., 113.

52 B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930), 572.

53 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 115.

54 See for example, Leland H. Gentry, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman: a Brief Historical Survey," BYU Studies, Vol. 13, Number 4 (Summer 1973), 564.

55 For more examples and a detailed analysis of the Word of Wisdom's interpretation among early LDS, see http://www.mormonfortress.com/wordwow.html.

56 Thanks to Brant Gardner for pointing this out.

57 William Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993), 174.

58 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 115.

59 Ibid., 116.

60 Thanks to Brant Gardner for this insight.

61 L. Ara Norwood, "Ignoratio Elenchi: The Dialogue That Never Was," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon Vol. 5 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1993), 329.

62 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 116.

63 See John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998), 16-26.

64 Brant Gardner, "Apologists--Honestly, How Do You Do It," Zion's Lighthouse Message Board/Roundtable, June 1, 2001.

65 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 117

66 William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 24.

67 BCE: Before Common Era, a new time period definition used by archaeologists that is equivalent to B.C., Before Christ.

68 Brant Gardner, "Surely the Lord God doeth nothing save he reveal it to FARMS," Zion's Lighthouse Message Board/Roundtable, July 14, 2001.

69 Thanks to Brant Gardner for drawing this to my attention.

70 William Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993) 161-197.

71 Ibid., 165-167.

72 Ibid., 168.

73 Ibid., 169.

74 Ibid., 169-170.

75 See John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company and FARMS, 1985) and Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1998); see also S. Kent Brown, "'The Place that was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/1 (1999), 66-67. Thanks to Lance Starr for reminding me of this information.

76 Brant Gardner, "Book of Mormon Twister Challenge," Zion's Lighthouse Message Board/Roundtable, July 26, 2001.

77 Ibid.

78 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 118.

79 Conference Report (April 1902), 28; as quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 119.

80 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 94; italics added.

81 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 119.

82 General Conference, October 1988, as in Ezra Taft Benson, "Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon," Ensign, (November 1988), 4.

83 Bishop C.A. Madsen, "Beauty and Harmony in Organic Creations," Improvement Era, 1900, Vol. IV (December, 1900), No 2.

84 Editors Table, Improvement Era, 1923, Vol. XXVI (July, 1923), No. 9.

85 "Cemetery Dedication a Fulfillment of Dreams," LDS Church News (10 August 1991).

86 Daniel C. Peterson, review of John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Mormonism, in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 5 (1993), 57; quoted by McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 121. McKeever and Johnson would have benefited greatly from reading Noel B. Reynolds, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ as Taught by the Nephite Prophets," BYU Studies 31:3 (Summer 1991), 31-47. In this paper, Reynolds explains that, "the gospel of Jesus Christ is not synonymous with the plan of salvation (or plan of redemption), but is a key part thereof. Brigham Young stated that the 'Gospel of the Son of God that has been revealed is a plan or system of laws and ordinances, by strict obedience to which the people who inhabit this earth are assured that they may return again into the presence of the Father and the Son.' While the plan of salvation is what God and Christ have done for mortals in the creation, the fall, the atonement, the final judgment, and the salvation of the world, the gospel contains the instructions--the laws and ordinances--that enable human beings to make the atonement effective in their lives and thereby gain salvation (p. 33; italics added).

87 Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah: The First Coming of Christ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 52,quoted in McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 121.

88 Noel B. Reynolds, "Gospel of Jesus Christ," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992),, 2:556, 558.

89 Dean B. Farnsworth, "Fulness of the Gospel," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:530.

90 Alma P. Burton, "Salvation," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1256-1257.

91 Margaret McConkie Pope, "Exaltation," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:479.

92 Alma P. Burton, "Salvation," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1257.

93 See John Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999).

94 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 121, 136.

95 McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 136.

96 Mosiah 3:12.

97 Moroni 7:39.

98 Alma 32:20.

99 Alma 7:24.

100 Moroni 7:40.

101 Moroni 7:41-44, 47; see also Moroni 10:20-21.

102 Alma 32:21, 26-27.

103 Alma 32:28-30.

104 Ether 12:6.

105 Alma 32: 18-19.

106 Alma 32:23.

107 Ether 12:11.

108 Moroni 7:37.

109 Ether 12:12.

110 Moroni 10:8-19.

111 2 Nephi 31:17.

112 Mosiah 2:38.

113 Alma 12:24.

114 Alma 12:30.

115 Alma 26:22.

116 Alma 42:4-11.

117 Alma 42:13.

118 Alma 42:15.

119 Alma 34:15-16.

120 Mormon 2:13.

121 Alma 34:34.

122 See, for example, Mark 16:16 and John 3:5.

123 See 2 Nephi 9:23-24; 31:5-6, 11; Alma 7:14; 9:27; 3 Nephi 11:33-34; 38.

124 See Mosiah 18:17; 25:18; 26:22; Alma 5:62; 6:2; 3 Nephi 26:21.

125 See Mosiah 18:13, 17; 21:33; 3 Nephi 7:25; 11:21-22; 3 Nephi 12:1.

126 See Mormon 9:29.

127 Mosiah 18:15-16; 3 Nephi 11:26.

128 See 2 Nephi 31:12-13; Mosiah 18:10; 3 Nephi 12:1.

129 See Moroni 8:25.

130 See Moroni 8:9-10.

131 See 3 Nephi 11:25.

132 See 1 Nephi 10:17-19.

133 See 2 Nephi 26:13.

134 Compare 3 Nephi 12:6 with Matthew 5:6 and Luke 6:21.

135 2 Nephi 31:12-14.

136 Moroni 2:2-3.

137 Moroni 3:4.

138 2 Nephi 33:1.

139 2 Nephi 28:26, 31.

140 Matthew 10:22; italics added.

141 Mark 13:13; italics added.

142 Matthew 24:13; italics added.

143 2 Timothy 2:10.

144 See Brant Gardner's "Multidimensional Commentary on the Book of Mormon," 2 Nephi 31, at http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/2Nephi/2Nephi31.htm

145 See for example Hebrews 6:15, Revelation 2:26, 3:21 and 21:17, as well as others. Thanks to Michael Hickenbotham for alerting me of these verses.

146 "Endure unto the end:" Book of Mormon 1 time; "endureth unto the end:" 0 (neither Bible nor Book of Mormon); "endureth to the end:" Book of Mormon, 7 times; "endure to the end:" Book of Mormon, 8 times (0 in Bible).

147 2 Nephi 9:24.

148 2 Nephi 31:16.

149 3 Nephi 27:16.

150 1 Nephi 13:37.

151 2 Nephi 31:20.

152 3 Nephi 15:9.

153 Moroni, chapters 4 and 5.

154 2 Nephi 2:27.

155 2 Nephi 2:19-25.

156 1 Nephi 13:1-6.

157 1 Nephi 13:24-29.

158 Mosiah 3:11.

159 2 Nephi 9:22; Mormon 9:13.

160 Mosiah 3:7.

161 See Gilbert Scharffs, "Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon," Ensign, (December 1988), 8-13; and Kent P. Jackson, "The Book of Mormon in the Restoration," From Apostasy to Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1961), 138-152.)

162 Harold Rosenberg, "The Cultural Situation Today," Partisan Review (New Brunswick, New Jersey, Summer 1972).

Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_101/Chapter_8&oldid=53166"