I came across the above video in which Trent Horn argues against the Book of Mormon. Here is the transcript:
“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired! Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood; we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the Earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century. After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Moreover, this church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon; therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”
It is a short video, so I can break it down and discuss it in detail. He begins his statement as follows:
“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired!”
That argument works both ways. The counter-argument goes like this:
If the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, then Catholicism isn’t true; the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, therefore Catholicism isn’t true! He continues:
“Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood;”
That is not quite correct. We believe that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by the Twelve Apostles—not by “successors of the Apostles”—who possessed the priesthood. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued. When one of the Apostles died, another was appointed to succeed him, as in the case of Matthias, who was appointed to succeed Judas, who had committed suicide (Acts 1:15–26); or of Paul, who was ordained an Apostle to succeed James, who had been put to death by Herod (Acts 12:1–2). To the Ephesians Paul wrote:
Ephesians 4:
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
All these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and all of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of “Apostles” and “prophets”. They were meant to continue, just as the offices of “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” etc. were meant to continue. When the Twelve Apostles were alive, they acted as the governing body of the church. If a dispute arose for example, they met in council to resolve it (Acts 15). The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued; and they governed the church by revelation. It was the persecution of the Christians, and the apostasy of the early church that prevented that institution from continuing in the church thereafter.
Paul wrote: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, …” (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also said: “And [you] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). This, coupled with the fact that whenever one of the Apostles died, someone was appointed to succeed him, proves that the institution was meant to continue. And the bishops were never meant to be successors to the Twelve Apostles. The bishops had local jurisdiction over their own local areas, not over the whole church. They could never take over the leadership of the whole church. He continues:
“we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century.”
The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy doesn’t mean that the church “left the earth” altogether. A church ultimately consists of the body of its membership; and there still remained many true, faithful, believing Christians in the world who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ; and who constituted God’s true church. It only means that the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church was lost, so that the church could no longer be led by revelation, as it originally was, when the Twelve Apostles were alive and governing the church. It also meant that valid sacraments could no longer be performed. He continues:
“After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.”
The “gates of hell” did not “prevail” against the church, for the reasons explained above; and the Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving that culture and tradition in the world. That is not in dispute. He continues:
“Moreover, this [Catholic] church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon;”
There are several issues with that argument. Firstly, the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible”. It was given to us by God over many centuries past, through his prophets and Apostles, until the Apostasy set in, which meant that those institutions could no longer continue in the church, as he himself acknowledges in the above quote. Secondly, the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever to “authoritatively teach that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles,” as he claims; because it has no power or authority to actually receive such a revelation—and doesn’t even claim to be able to. The reason why there have been “no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles” is because the Catholic Church has not had the power and authority to receive them, and doesn’t even claim to be able to (as the LDS Church does). Those powers were lost through the Apostasy, when the last Apostle died—which is why they needed to be restored in the latter days. And lastly, the Book of Mormon is indeed a book of ancient scripture like the Bible, received by revelation in our time; the fact that he or the Catholic Church do not recognize or acknowledge it, is irrelevant. The Jews (who gave us the Old Testament) do not recognize the New Testament as scripture. So what? It doesn’t make it so. The same argument applies here. And his last comment is as follows:
“therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”
He has got the first part of the argument right, but not the second part. It is either one or the other. If one is true, the other can’t be. That is correct. The question is, which one? The answer is that the Book of Mormon is indeed true, a book of ancient scripture, divinely inspired, and a revelation from God; therefore Catholicism which rejects it (assuming it does, it has not officially declared that it does), cannot be true. The Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving Christian tradition (and scripture) in the world, as I said before; that is acknowledged; but if it rejects the Restoration of the gospel in the last days, it cannot be ordained of God.
