What is the Book of Mormon?

 

I just discovered a recently created YouTube channel called “Hello Saints,” by a Christian pastor by the name of Jeff McCullough, whose purpose is to explore the beliefs, teachings, culture and traditions of Latter-day Saints, and engage them in a friendly and respectful dialogue. He doesn’t have too many videos on his channel yet, since he has only just started. I have watched all the videos on his channel so far, and he appears to be sincere in his desire to be impartial and friendly towards the Latter-day Saints. He has one video on his channel titled: “Christian Pastor explores the Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints),” in which he explains his purpose and motives for creating the channel, which can be seen here. So I am going to reciprocate, and reply to one of his videos in the same spirit of friendly dialogue. The video I am going to comment on is one that he has made about the Book of Mormon, and is titled: “What is the Book of Mormon?” (seen above). He says that he hasn’t read the Book of Mormon yet, and in this video he is commenting on a cartoon video about the Book of Mormon published by the Church, explaining the origin and purpose of the Book of Mormon, and its significance for Latter-day Saints. That video can be seen here. He begins his commentary by first playing a short introductory clip from the video, as follows:

“Shortly after his death the Savior appeared to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas as the resurrected Lord, with the body of flesh and bones.”

Then he stops the video, and adds the following comment:

“Okay, let’s stop right there, this is really fascinating. Hello Saints! My name is Jeff. I am a Christian pastor, learning everything I can about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and in this video I am going to be talking about the Book of Mormon. It is the basis of the LDS Church, and the LDS Church’s YouTube channel has put out a video explaining what the Book of Mormon is. So I am going to watch it, I am going to learn, I am going to react, and I am going to give you my perspective, so let’s do it:”

Then he plays the next clip from the video, as follows:

“The Book of Mormon—what is it, and why do members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints care so much about it? Mormons, properly referred to as Latter-day Saints, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, read and revere the Bible as all Christians do; but they read and believe in an additional book called the ‘Book of Mormon: another testament of Jesus Christ’. For them, it is not a replacement for the Bible, it is not a substitute, it is a companion. Just as the Bible is scripture, the Book of Mormon is also scripture. Let’s talk a little about what scriptures are, and how they come about. The word ‘scripture’ means sacred or religious writings. Scriptures are written by God’s spokesmen called prophets, his representatives. Although God often teaches and communicates with his children individually, something Latter-day Saints call ‘personal revelation,’ when God interacts with or teaches his children as a people, his prophets record those events and teachings for the benefit of all.”

Then he stops the video, and makes the following comment:

“Okay, so right off the bat here, the description of what the scriptures are, what the Bible is, and how it comes about, is pretty consistent with what is taught in the rest of Christianity—that God gives revelation to specific individuals, and they write it down for the benefit of those who are following God. Let’s keep going:”

Then he continues with the next segment of the video as follows:

“The holy Bible is one example of scripture; it is an account of God’s interactions and teachings with the people in and around the eastern Mediterranean region before, during, and after the ministry of Jesus Christ. It is a collection of writings both spiritual and historical, written by prophets.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“So one thing that is sticking out to me right here is, the specificity of the timing and the location of when the Bible was written. Whenever I am teaching people how to read the Bible, how to study the Bible; understanding who it is originally written to, when, and why, is really important to understanding what is being said. So pointing out that the Bible was written to a specific people at a specific time is important, and I appreciate that that is being pointed out.”

So far so good! Then he continues by playing the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“In the holy Bible, there are miraculous stories of faith, sacrifice, trial and love. You might have heard of Noah and the Ark, or Moses and the children of Israel; and of course, the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These stories and events were written down, collected, and shared from generation to generation. They were eventually compiled into a collection of scripture, a book called the holy Bible, originally written in both Hebrew and Greek. The Bible has since been translated into English, and hundreds of other languages available throughout the world.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“Okay, so as they wrap up the section on what the Bible is, why it was written, how it was written, how it was translated, I am tracking; I think that this is a pretty good representation of how all of Christianity regards the scriptures, regards the Bible; and why we believe it to be so important to what we believe, and why we believe it.”

Then he continues with the next clip from the video, as follows:

“What about the people that lived beyond the geographical setting of the Bible, outside the Mediterranean area? What kind of interaction did God have with them?”

To this he then adds the following comment:

“That is a really good question. That is a question that I think a lot of people in Christianity, especially in America, wonder about. What about people who weren’t in the proximity of where God was doing his work through the Jewish people in the Old Testament, or the Hebrew people; and what Jesus was doing, and the impact that he was making in and around Israel during his lifetime. What about the people that live in other parts of the world? So this is a really fascinating question that a lot of people wonder about, and this is actually being addressed here, as we explore more about the Book of Mormon.”

Then he plays the next clip, as follows:

“Well in the Bible from the book of John, Jesus revealed to his disciples in Jerusalem, ‘And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.’ Some of these ‘other sheep’ to which Jesus refers, are the inhabitants of the ancient Americas who lived at that time.”

To which he then adds the following comment:

“Okay, so I am going to need to pause right there, because this really is straying from my understanding of that specific passage it was just quoted in John, and is a bit of a stretch to tie to the people in the Americas, let me explain why. In that specific passage in John, Jesus is actually talking to the Jewish people, the people that were of the house of God throughout the entirety of the Old Testament; and what he is explaining is that he didn’t just come for the Jewish people, but he came for anybody who had put their faith in him—so essentially Gentiles, or non-Jews. So this tie to people in America is a bit of a stretch, because from what I understand, the LDS Church teaches that the people in America are actually of Hebrew descent, so I am not sure that this syncs up with how I would handle that passage in John.”

That is when he actually starts critiquing Latter-day Saint beliefs, teachings, and doctrines. He objects to how the video interprets John 10:16, on the grounds that, according to him, it refers to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, rather than to another branch of the house of Israel on the American continent. The scripture in question is as follows:

John 10:

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The bit that he has overlooked in that verse is that in it Jesus says that his “other sheep” shall hear his voice (in the same way that the Jews were hearing him in Palestine at the time). This does not apply to the Gentiles; because Jesus did not personally minister to the Gentiles, in the same way that he had done among the Jews. The Jews were literally “hearing his voice” (as did also the Book of Mormon people in the Americas, to whom he personally ministered after his resurrection); but not so with the Gentiles. The Gentiles received the gospel message indirectly through the preaching of the Jews. They did not directly “hear his voice,” as the Jews had done. So his interpretation of that scripture (John 10:16) is a bit forced, and does not follow the most logical reading of the text. The inhabitants of America at the time (who were of Hebrew descent) would have had no means of “hearing him” unless he had personally ministered among them. The American continent had not yet been discovered, and the only way that they could have heard the gospel message would have been by his own personal ministry among them. Then he continues with the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“The Book of Mormon is a compilation of the sacred writings of many generations of the people that lived there, and received instruction and teachings from God. They had prophets who just like the Bible, recorded spiritual and historical events over thousands of years. The crowning event in the Book of Mormon is the account of Jesus Christ ministering to the ‘other sheep,’ as he said he would. Shortly after his death, the Savior appeared to the inhabitants of the ancient Americas as the resurrected Lord, with the body of flesh and bones, as he did in his earthly ministry in Jerusalem. Jesus taught the inhabitants his gospel, and they recorded it. They handed it down to future generations through prophets, leaders, and other inspired individuals.”

To this he then adds his own commentary as follows:

“Okay, let’s stop right there, this is really fascinating. So on one hand this is an effort to answer the question we were talking about earlier, about the people who lived in the Americas during the time of Jesus; and what this really highlights to me is how firmly the LDS Church adheres to and holds to what we were talking about a second ago, where scriptures are written to a specific people at a specific time. What I am learning here is that the LDS Church holds that really firmly, and believes that the holy Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament, were specifically for the people in the eastern Mediterranean, and in that part in and around Israel; but that the Book of Mormon is specifically for the people in the Americas.”

I pause here to make a slight correction. The Church’s theological position is not that the Bible is “for” the Jews around Palestine, and the Book of Mormon is “for” the inhabitants of the ancient Americas. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are ultimately meant for the whole world. But they were originally addressed to the ancient inhabitants of each of those respective groups. The way he says it doesn’t mean quite the same thing. He then continues his criticism of the Church’s theological position as follows:

“But there is a big question that is looming in my mind, and that is, does the information that is outlined in the Book of Mormon match what is in the Bible? because there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that at any point Jesus was going to sort of reincarnate, or appear to people in other parts of the world. That is not something that is taught about, or foreshadowed, or indicated in the Bible; which makes me pause as to how plausible it is that he would have done it, as it is outlined here in the Book of Mormon.”

The first problem I have with his observations is that Jesus didn’t need to “reincarnate” in order to appear to the Nephite in the Americas. Once Jesus was “incarnated” for the purpose of his mortal ministry, and death and resurrection; he remains “incarnated” for the rest of eternity (see Acts 1:11). Jesus didn’t “disincarnate” after his resurrection and ascension into heaven, that he should need to “reincarnate” again in order to appear to the Nephites. That is the first point. The second point is that, whether the contents of the Book of Mormon matches that of the Bible (doctrinally and theologically) or not, is something that he needs to read the Book of Mormon to find out. He can’t just make wild guesses about it. And the fact that the Book of Mormon may contain information not found in the Bible is to be expected. It wouldn’t make sense if it didn’t. It is a sacred record of God’s dealings with a different group of people on a different continent. At the end of the Gospel of John, it says the following:

John 21:

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The Book of Mormon is a small fraction compared to a complete record of all of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history, if it were the will of the Lord that they should all be revealed—much more of which indeed God has promised to be revealed at some point in the future:

Ether 4:

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

So it is to be expected that the Book of Mormon will contain sacred material not found in the Bible. The important point is whether the theology remains the same or not. And to find that out, he needs to read the Book of Mormon; he can’t just make guesses about it. He then continues with the next clip from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“So how did the Book of Mormon get its name? Who is Mormon, and what does he have to do with this book of scripture in the 4th century AD? Again, in the Americas there lived a prophet and historian named Mormon. He was charged by God to abridge all of the scriptural records that had been kept and passed down from past prophets in that part of the world. Mormon engraved the abridgement on gold plates, in a language his people called Reformed Egyptian. As Mormon was the prophet whom God called to compile the centuries of records, the book carries his name, the Book of Mormon. At the end of his life he passed these engraved plates to his son Moroni, also a prophet of God, who was last to add to the book. Before he died Moroni buried the gold plates in a stone box on a hillside, in what is now upstate New York. Fourteen hundred years later in 1823, this same prophet Moroni, now a resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. He told Joseph about the gold plates, showed him where to find them, and commanded him to translate the record into English, which Joseph did under the power and inspiration of God. And since then the Book of Mormon has been translated into over a hundred languages, and is like the holy Bible also available throughout the world as an additional book of sacred writings written by God’s prophets—scripture.”

And adds his comments on it as follows:

“Okay, so this is a really fascinating piece of information here, this idea that Joseph Smith received the ability to translate the Book of Mormon from gold plates into English under the inspiration or power of God. That is something that is incredibly unique to the Book of Mormon, and I don’t know of any occurrence of that taking place with the writers of the Old Testament or the New Testament. The writers of the Bible received revelation from God, and wrote it in their native language; and then after that, people would translate it into other languages, so that it could be read and understood. But the fact that Joseph Smith was translating these gold plates from Reformed Egyptian, which is a language I am not familiar with, I have never heard of that before; but I am also not a linguist, so I should probably just do some research, and maybe make a video on it. But to take it from Reformed Egyptian to English by the power of God is incredibly unique, and is not at all how the rest of the Bible was written; and I think that is important for me to point out, because up to this point in this video there has been this comparison to how similar the Bible is to the Book of Mormon, with the people that it was written by, and who it was written to, and the reasons that it was written. So this is a pretty big difference that I think is worth pointing out.”

Two points with that one. The first is that “Reformed Egyptian” was not a “language,” it was a kind of “writing script” that acted like some kind of “shorthand” that enabled them to condense a large amount of text in a small space for the purpose of engraving it on metal plates. The language itself that they used was a dialect of Hebrew; but they transcribed it using that script for the purpose of engraving it on metal plates. That is a mistake that the video that he is commenting on makes, so it is not his fault. The second point is that how the Book of Mormon was translated is not an issue, from a doctrinal or theological point of view. What is important from that point of view is what the book contains, not how it was translated. The translation of the Book of Mormon had to be a miraculous process, because young Joseph Smith, who was put in charge of translating it, was not a scholar of ancient languages. I have discussed issues relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon in another post which can be seen here. Then he plays the next clip from the original video as follows:

“So what is in the Book of Mormon? As stated on its introduction page, the Book of Mormon puts forth the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, outlines God’s plan of happiness for his children, and tells them what they must do to gain peace in this life, and obtain salvation and eternal life with God. Nephi, an early prophet found in the Book of Mormon preached, ‘And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.’ In fact the Book of Mormon has over 500 pages containing nearly 3500 references to the Savior Jesus Christ. It testifies of Jesus Christ, it declares the mission of the Savior, it reveals the gospel of Jesus Christ, and clarifies doctrine.”

To this he then adds his own observations as follows:

“Okay, so I am learning that there is a lot of information in the Book of Mormon that really does point to Jesus, to why he came, and what he came to do. I think that leads to a question though, about who Jesus is? Is the Jesus in the Book of Mormon described the same way that he is described in the Bible—not just in like personality and character, but what about his origin, where does Jesus come from? Is that consistent in the Book of Mormon, whenever you read how that is described in the Bible? Is Jesus considered God for example, because the Bible teaches that Jesus is God? If the Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that, or if it teaches any information that is different about Jesus, though the Book of Mormon might use the name Jesus, and point to the mission of Jesus, if it contradicts what the Bible teaches, I think that puts me in a place of wondering we are using the same name, but are we talking about the same Jesus? That is a really important question that I have, as I continue to learn about the content of the Book of Mormon, and the stuff that is taught about Jesus, and his mission for mankind.”

That is a rather disingenuous comment, casting doubt about the true identity of Jesus as taught in the Book of Mormon, without having read the book, and without being able to quote specific instances from it to back up his doubts and misgivings. For an impartial observer wanting to look into, and investigate the claims, origin, history, beliefs, and teachings of Latter-day Saints, reading the Book of Mormon should be the first step, before doing anything else. The fact that he hasn’t done that yet, and is willing to cast doubts and aspersions on the true identity of Jesus as taught in the Book of Mormon without being able to give any quotes or references, makes me a little bit suspicious of the sincerity of his motives. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and continue to explore his comments. He then plays the next segment from the Book of Mormon video as follows:

“As the Bible contains the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Book of Mormon is yet another Testament of Jesus Christ. It is another witness of God’s dealings with his children in a different part of the world. The Bible and the Book of Mormon work together to teach and testify of the Lord Jesus Christ, and God’s dealings with his children.”

To which he then adds his own comment as follows:

“Okay this is fascinating, because I really am seeing an effort to be made to show how similar the Book of Mormon is, in where it comes from, how it came about, and to whom it came about, trying to make a parallel connection to how the Bible came about. But as a pastor, there is a few questions that are looming in my mind. There is a lot of what we can see in the Bible that has extra-biblical evidence around it, as far as cities, and people, and archaeology that sort of corroborates the writing of the scriptures, and to whom it came. For examples you will find excavations of areas where battles took place, and there is evidence of those battles; and there is also evidence of the Bible being passed through generations on manuscripts, and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which if you don’t know the story about the Dead Sea Scrolls, you need to check it out, because it is pretty magnificent, that there were scrolls that were found in the early to mid 20th century, and there are portions of scriptures going all the way back into the Old Testament, which gives evidence to the writing of the Bible, the preservation of the Bible. My question is, does that same evidence exist regarding the story that surrounds the Book of Mormon, as far as people and places, archaeological finds around cities and battles, because I think that is one thing that I have heard that that evidence doesn’t exist for the Book of Mormon, like it does for the Bible, which is one of the reasons why there is a pause for the rest of Christianity, when it comes to considering the Book of Mormon as an actual sacred text or scripture, when it is lacking extra biblical evidence. let’s keep watching:”

There are two problems with that objection. The first is that while there is some archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Bible, for most of it there isn’t any. There is no evidence for example that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years. There is no evidence for the Exodus, or for the miracles of Moses, or for the Israelites wandering in the Sinai Desert for 40 years, or for the conquest of Canaan etc. There is no evidence for Genesis, the creation story, and beyond. There is no evidence for the stories of the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob etc. Secular scholars often consider these stories to be fables. So from that point of view, the Bible doesn’t fare much better than the Book of Mormon. And there is plenty of evidence for ancient civilizations existing in Central and North America, as described in the Book of Mormon. The second problem with his objection is that no amount of “archaeological evidence” can prove to anyone that the Bible is the word of God, that it is an inspired and sacred text, and that those who wrote it were prophets and inspired men who were in direct communion with God. That is why most secular scholars and historians who specialize in those fields do not necessarily consider the Bible to be a divinely inspired text. Belief in, and conviction of the inspired nature of the Bible can only come by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and the same applies to the Book of Mormon. Belief in the inspired nature of either book can only come by the witness of the Spirit—not by archaeological evidence. I am sure there is good archaeological evidence for the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Rig Veda, the Avesta, Tao Te Chingor, and for the Egyptian Book of the Dead. But that does not make them scripture. Archaeological evidence doesn’t make the Bible scripture; only the witness of the Spirit does; and the same applies to the Book of Mormon. He then plays the next clip from the video as follows:

“Today, millions of Latter-day Saints believe ‘The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ,’ to be scripture. They believe it is the word of God to his children, and stands as a companion to the holy Bible. God loves his children, and wants them to know about him, learn of him and his son Jesus Christ. He has provided holy scripture to show his children the way. Through living the teachings found in the Book of Mormon and the holy Bible, they can find peace in this life, and salvation in the life to come. The Book of Mormon: what it is, where it came from, and what it teaches. Now you know now.”

That brings to an end the Book of Mormon video published by the Church that he has been commenting on, to which he then adds his concluding remarks as follows:

“Now I know. That was really well done. It was very helpful, super informational. To summarize my reaction, I think that there is an agreement on understanding where the origin of the Bible came from, and what it is, and to whom it was written, and why it was written. When it gets into the idea of there being sort of an extra-biblical testament of Jesus, that makes me ask a lot of questions about whether there is archaeological or extra-biblical proofs of what the Book of Mormon claims. Are the teachings in the Book of Mormon consistent with the teachings in the Bible, because where there is a contradiction, that gives me pause to embrace the Book of Mormon. And also, is the Jesus that is talked about through it is the same name, is it the same Jesus that is described in the Bible?”

The archaeological issue has already been discussed. As far as the teachings of the Book of Mormon are concerned, the only way that he can intelligently comment on those is first by reading the book, which for some mysterious reason he seems reluctant to do! He can’t comment on the contents of the book without first reading the book, and being able to quote from it to back up his claims; and the same applies to the “Jesus” mentioned in the Book of Mormon, compared with the “Jesus” mentioned in the Bible. So why he is so slow to read the Book of Mormon to judge it for himself, and be able to compare its teachings with that of the Bible, and quote from it if he finds disagreements, is a little bit puzzling from my perspective. He then continues his commentary as follows:

“Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out a very specific passage in the Bible, that might be one of the biggest reasons why I am slow to embrace the Book of Mormon, and it is a passage found in Galatians. It says, ‘But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel other than the one we preach to you, let them be under God’s curse’ [Galatians 1:8]. What I believe the Bible teaches, and what is taught in the rest of Christianity, is that after the Old and the New testament were revealed, and given to us by God, that there was no more revelation to come; that Jesus is the revelation of God’s character and will in flesh; and that everything that is taught about in the Bible about who he is, why he came, is sufficient for salvation and reconciliation before God. So anything that comes after the Old and the New Testament, and claims to be an additional revelation, even if it is from an angel, and presents a gospel that is unique, and is a bit of a different spin on the gospel that is taught in the New Testament, these are all questions that we ask in the rest of the Christian community, that makes us slow to embrace the Book of Mormon.”

There are several issues with that. Firstly, there is nothing in the Bible that says that there should be no more revelation or scripture given after the Bible. No such thing as the “Bible” even existed during the time period that he is referring to. The New Testament had not yet been compiled, and would not be for many centuries afterwards. The only “Bible” that existed at the time was the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. There is nothing in the Bible that says that there should be no more revelations or scripture after the Bible. And as far as the passage found in Galatians that he is referring to (Galatians 1:8), the answer is that the Book of Mormon does not teach “another gospel”. It teaches the same gospel, but within the framework of a different people and culture, and it also clarifies many doctrinal ambiguities and lack of clarity that exists in the biblical text. He then continues his commentary as follows:

“But at the end of the day, here is the other thing: I haven’t read the Book of Mormon yet, and I am going to, and as I do I will provide my reaction. But I am glad I got this foundational knowledge of what it is, and why the LDS Church embraces it. And it is really helpful for me to understand its importance, as it relates to the LDS Church, and the Mormon people. But what are your thoughts? Leave a comment below. Let’s talk about it, and keep it respectful. Also I would love it if you checked out my Patreon, where you can just support this channel; or you can get a sneak peek behind the scenes, and even interact with me personally, and keep coming back here to watch more videos, because I got more to make, I got more to talk about, I got more to learn about. So until then, I will see you later Saints.”

I am waiting for him to do just that, to read the Book of Mormon, and tell us what he thinks. He is taking a risk though, reading the Book of Mormon, and trying to compare its teachings with that of the Bible. The risk is that as he does, he is likely to gain a witness of its truth!