If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone
Book of Mormon is Man-Made
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fastest growing Church in the world. It traces its origins back to 1830 when a young man called Joseph Smith of Palmyra, New York, founded the Church of Christ based on the Book of Mormon which he said he translated from golden plates that he found in a hill by the guidance of an angel called Moroni. Mormon was the pretended author of the Book of Mormon and supposedly died in the fifth century CE. He allegedly abridged plates he had to create the Book of Mormon. The book was translated with magic glasses and firstly three witnesses saw the plates and later eight more were granted the privilege. Smith called out what he saw on the glasses to his secretary who wrote what he dictated down. The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written in Reformed Egyptian. Smith proclaimed himself to be a Prophet and he brought out several revelations before his assassination by a mob in 1844. He had claimed that the Father and the Son appeared to him in 1820 when he prayed about what Church to join. They told him to join none for they were all abominations and the disciples of these Churches were all corrupt. There is so much religious fraud going on that one or two frauds have to strike it lucky and get away with it. The founders of Christianity and Mormonism struck it very lucky indeed.
WHAT IS THE BOOK OF MORMON?
The Book of Mormon is a scripture that was supposedly miraculously revealed to a man called Joseph Smith in the 19th Century in New York State. He said that God sent an angel to help him find ancient gold plates. When Smith got the plates he said God helped him translate Reformed Egyptian characters into English with the help of magic spectacles called Urim and Thummim.
The Book of Mormon does not claim to be another Bible. It claims to be a missing part of our Bible. It is a companion then to the Bible. Members of the Mormon faith say that the Book of Mormon is therefore the word of God.
The Bible is false and not divinely inspired so it is impossible then to see how the Book of Mormon could be anything other than a hoax. Also there is solid evidence that Jesus who the Book of Mormon says was a real person who appeared in America after his resurrection never existed and never rose from the dead if he did.
IS THE BOOK OF MORMON THE WORD OF GOD?
Joseph Smith taught that God translated the book through him by means of magic spectacles which was why he said it was the most correct book on earth (History of the Church, 4:461). The articles of faith of the Mormon Church say that the book is the word of God. The book means the whole book. The whole thing is allegedly of divine authorship and God is even claimed to have done the translating.
The book does not claim to be fully inspired which is the main reason why it is best ignored. Nevertheless, it contains prophecies and revelations which it does say are inspired. But the book is certainly a forgery and not from God. First Nephi 19:6 says that mistakes could have been made in the book. Nephi says that he only writes things down if he thinks they are sacred and that if he makes mistakes it is only natural for he is a man. So Nephi is not sure if he is right or not. Mormon chapter 8 says that Mormon’s work contains imperfections though he knows of no fault and that whoever condemns the book will be eternally damned. Mormon 9:30, 31 says it speaks from the dead and the son of Mormon, Moroni, says that the future generation that will read his book must not condemn him or his father for their imperfections. God is to be thanked for showing it their imperfections. Joseph Smith’s introduction on the Title Page says that if there are faults they are human mistakes and do not justify rejecting the book for the book is of God. This introduction is attributed to the angel Moroni and is divinely inspired and was translated from the golden plates (page 18, An Address to All Believers in Christ). The Book of Mormon never claims to be perfect. It claims to record revelations from God but it never claims to be totally infallible. Moroni even wrote that if he and Mormon had been able to use Hebrew his record would have been better written and clearer (Mormon 9:33).
When the Book of Mormon is not infallible how could Smith be?
Mormon 8:12 commends anybody who will not condemn the book because of its imperfections.
The Mormons might respond that these imperfections are just bad writing style and awkward descriptions and banal language on the basis of Ether 12:23. But Ether was not the author of the Book of Mormon and wrote on different plates. Anyway God would improve the style and so on in the translation.
When the book might be fallible in matters of history and science the way is opened for the Mormons to advance a liberal understanding that the book gives the word of God but is not always factually correct. This helps the Church not to look stupid when the fact that there is no evidence that anything the book says is true becomes too much to bear. It would be a tragedy if the Church began to admit human error in the Book of Mormon for it would do away with many of the evidences against the Mormon Church at a stroke and make it stronger.
But when God planned to do a translation through Joseph Smith why could God not get the prophets to write without making mistakes? Jesus appeared among the Nephites and to Mormon and Jesus commanded that some prophecies and things be written down so why didn’t he make sure the scriptures were right? If the Book of Mormon is to have the right to be added to the Bible then it has to be perfect for the Bible says true scripture is always factually correct down to the crossed ts when it predicts the future meaning that it is reasonable to expect total perfection. These questions are unanswerable.
2 Nephi 5:32 has Nephi saying he wrote what was pleasing to God but he did not write that he wrote only what pleases God. Any minister would say his sermon despite its imperfections and errors is pleasing to God.
No Book of Mormon coins have ever been found. The Mormons say they used no coins but they would have had for they came from a culture that used them. Mormons respond the Nephites did not use coins. They gave precious metals in exchange for other goods depending on the weight. But this is no help to the Mormons. Alma 11 says that you paid a shiblon for half a measure of barley which shows that if it is not coins we have here it is nuggets or lumps of gold and silver. Nuggets or not they should be as common as lost coins are especially in the battlefields.
No Book of Mormon cities have ever been found. Smith believed that the science of his day could prove the book when he wrote these daring things but made the book say it was imperfect just in case.
Mormon 7:9 says that anybody who believes the Bible will believe in the Book of Mormon too which is dishonest when the book never claims to be the word of God and claims that the Bible is unreliable. If I should believe in the Book of Mormon because of the Bible then it follows that both are equally full of error. Why? For if the Book of Mormon were infallible and not corrupted like the Bible, then it would be superior to the Bible and we should believe in the Bible where it says the Bible is right. We should make the Book of Mormon the supreme authority. The verse says that if you believe either one you have to believe in the other. The Bible is more believable than the Book of Mormon. We know that some of the places and people in the Bible existed and we do not have this assurance with the Book of Mormon.
1 Nephi 13:40 also says that the Book of Mormon will show the truth of the Bible and restore the many plain and precious things that have been removed from it. If so then why does the Book of Mormon agree with the Christian Church in all essentials and add barely anything?
Mormons say that the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 29 has God saying that those who say they have a Bible and need no more Bible when they hear of the Book of Mormon are wrong for if he speaks his words once he can speak them again. Then God says that it is silly to suppose that God would speak to one nation and not another. This argument fails because God can speak again but may have chosen not to. This argument is trying to say that God cannot do that and must always speak!
The Book of Mormon then rejects the idea that the Bible is closed and the Book of Mormon claims to be another part of the Bible.
This is about what people say. It makes no comment on whether the Bible is accurate or not.
The fact that the Book of Mormon does not pretend to full inspiration proves that any blunders in it could be put down to the lack of divine protection so that the Book can still be believed no matter how many blunders it makes. This is an untenable approach. A book with no or fewer errors would have more authority.
The chapter speaks of the Bible. But the Bible was not called the Bible until well into the first millennium of the Church and this was supposedly written between 559 and 545 BC. Mormons say that God translated the word used by the Nephites as Bible so they didn’t know the word Bible.
Verse 10 claims that it is mad to suppose that if there is a Bible that it contains all the word of God for there would have to be some word of God that was not in it. True but that does not prove that there would have to be new scripture or that the missing word would be preserved. The logic God uses here is fallacious. Also the Book of Mormon says there can only be one true Church of Christ and yet in verse 13 it says that the records of the ten tribes of Israel will appear as new additions to the Bible. But there is no evidence for the existence of these records. It does not say how they will come forth which opens the way for any Mormon and especially those ones who believe in the Book of Mormon alone to pretend to false revelations, for the other Mormon scriptures put a bit of a limit on how far would-be prophets would go, and lead the people astray. God is thoughtless isn’t he?
The Book of Mormon accepts the gospel account of Christ and the Sermon at the Temple is almost identical to the Sermon on the Mount in the Matthew Gospel. Yet Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount is very different and why Matthew’s version and not his? The differences between Matthew and Luke show that the gospels themselves do not claim to be giving Jesus’ teaching word for word. Even the hardest fundamentalist agrees with that but insists that if the meaning is preserved that is all that matters. Objectively speaking however when the wording differs between Matthew and Luke it indicates that the early Church was careless for you need to watch the wording perfectly in case a mistake is made. Meanings are not enough. Christians boast that it does not matter for the meanings correspond but still the gospels endorsed a dangerous practice for they allegedly used only a small part of what was being said about Jesus which could have led them to misinterpret him when they were paraphrasing him. To paraphrase is to interpret.
So if the Sermon at the Temple were very different from both Matthew and Luke it would have a better claim to authenticity going by biblical standards.
We know too that the portrait of Jesus in the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century because it can be proved that the gospel Jesus was not known in the days of Paul and the activities of Jesus in the New World supposedly precede Paul for Jesus was in America in 34 AD according to the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon says that the Bible has been altered. This means the Book of Mormon alone can be considered to be proper evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. The three witnesses should have seen the risen Jesus instead of the angel when they had their vision of the angels showing them the plates. Without seeing Jesus their testimony is no use because it means we have to believe that Jesus rose because they saw a book that said so. But the resurrection is Jesus’ great proof that he was the Son of God and the saviour of the world. It is not much of a proof but a failure then in that case.
The Book of Mormon gives no provable prophecies or predictions of the future to show that a God who knew the future wrote it. The prophecies in it were largely written after the event. The book predicts that the Jews will return to their land when they believe in Christ. They are back in their land today and they don't!
PHILOSOPHICAL ERRORS IN THE BOM
There are many religions and cults in the world that vie for your allegiance. In the end the choice of which one you will join has to be decided on the basis of reason and the best evidence alone. It will be the most believable creed that has no philosophical absurdities in it. A teaching is either reasonable or it is not. The Book of Mormon has to be discarded it makes errors in reasoning.
The Book of Mormon states that when God does not do miracles such as apparitions of angels it is because there is no faith and miracles are worked by the power of faith (Moroni 7). Joseph did not do any miracles after the Book of Mormon was written. The Book is saying that he lost his faith. It is more likely that he never believed in the first place for he never did any convincing miracles or experienced any. So the Book of Mormon must be false when Smith did not have the faith that was needed before God could produce it through him. The Book of Mormon like Roman Catholicism sees faith as more than belief but as submission to the will of God in the mind and in the heart so it means believing and living out what you believe. Smith gave Harris, Whitmer and Cowdery a revelation that if they had a full faith they would see the gold plates. So that means they had to be exceptionally holy and good and honest men. But even the Mormon scriptures admit that they were not and they were all thrown out of the Church and Smith condemned them as evil. That is why their fall into fraud and counterfeiting and Harris’ credulity mean that they could not have seen the Book of Mormon plates. The Book of Mormon then denies that they saw the plates. A God who only does miracles if you already believe is a strange God. He is supernaturally intervening for nothing except grandiose shows of power.
2 Nephi 2:23 states that if Adam and Eve had not sinned they would have had no children and would not have known any joy for they knew no misery and being unable to do good for they did not know what sin was. This is utter rubbish. Sinlessness was no bar to making babies. And you can have joy when you forget about misery and do good when you forget about sin so you can have joy without knowing what sin is.
2 Nephi 2:13 argues that if there is no law there is no sin and if there is no sin there is no righteousness and if there is no righteousness there is no happiness and if there is no happiness there is no unhappiness and if there is no happiness or righteousness there is no punishment or sadness and if they do not exist there is no God and if there is no God there is no earth or creation.
These arguments are outrageously silly. Happiness can exist without us freely doing what is right. Rewards and punishment do not infer that God exists. And the teaching that heaven and earth must have been made by God is childish for who made God? If they had to have been made then what about God? The Mormon God is a material being and is not a being that has a chance of having to exist like 2+2=4 like the Christian one. Heaven and earth could have been made by an impersonal spiritual intelligence that is not a person and is not entitled to be believed to be God or worshipped.
The Mormon Church cannot say that these arguments are just part of what the speaker in the Book was saying and not necessarily endorsed by God or the inspired author of the Book. The Book of Mormon makes it clear that it is an abridgment of the Nephite scriptures meaning that Mormon the abridger was going to use only material that was doctrinally correct for it would be madness to put stuff like that in when the space could be used for divinely approved teaching. Moreover, once you start using that excuse that the text might be inspired but what it says might not be endorsed by God, you could come to the epistles of Paul in the New Testament with the same approach. Scripture is no good to you if you accept the excuse. You could say that God inspired the four gospels and that he does not approve of everything in them. So unless a teaching in a scripture is specifically stated to be just the opinion of the speaker it has to be taken to be the word of God and the teaching of God. You could say that when the Old Testament reports God as having commanded something that you don’t like you could say the author was only on about what he thought God was saying and was not claiming to be always right.
In 2 Nephi 11:7 we read that if there is no Christ there is no God. This seems to mean that if there is no Christ to die to satisfy the justice of God and atone for sins there can be no God for God does not care about us to save us (see 2 Nephi 9:26). But one person cannot atone for another. Our good works should be infinitely pleasing to God for God likes them infinitely and should be able to atone. Jesus could not atone if we are already atoned. The Christian gospel says that we do not deserve to be saved so God would be perfect right and just not to bother saving anybody if he didn’t want to.
The recording of miracles in the Book of Mormon prove that it is inauthentic. This was a book that was allegedly revised and abridged and edited by Mormon and then by his son Moroni. Nobody saw the result of their work so they could have lied all they wanted. Would God base his revelation of miracles on such a weak foundation? You only believe in miracles as a last resort for they are so unnatural and uncommon and can be faked so it is wrong to say that these men wrote the truth only for there is no evidence that they wrote lies. You can’t believe in every unrefuted miracle. Miracles prevent one from being sure if a book is from God. They make you agnostic especially when they can’t be proved. For example, God can find a way to have one person in two bodies at the same time. So once miracles are accepted you could say that a scripture that says that somebody was killed and then forgets this and speaks of them as living is still inspired despite the contradiction for a miracle solves the conflict. The men rose from the dead. Miracles claim to depend on evidence and they cut it off like it was a branch they were sitting on. Miracles are not a call to faith but to self-deceit.
The Book of Mormon says that Satan appears like a good angel (Mosiah 30:53) and miraculously appeared and spoke to Eve from a serpent (2 Nephi 2:17, 18) and supernaturally supervised the people who set up the abominable Church (1 Nephi 13). When Satan has such powers that millions think are good miracles from God and which are clever deceptions in ways we cannot see it follows that the only thing that gives us the right to believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God is its ability to foretell the future. But there is no evidence for that. Any prophecy that was fulfilled could have been written after the event or was going to happen anyway by human deliberation. Though the Devil can make a prophecy and then force secretly possessed people to fulfil the prophecy meaning that even fulfilled prophecy does not prove that anybody or God can see the future we know that no believer can accept this and will have to put down prophecy as evidence. Anybody can write a pack of religious lies and say it is the word of God so God has to put some mark of authenticity on his real book. Had the Book of Mormon not attributed supernatural powers to Satan there might have been some hope for it. Smith then made the mistake of thinking that visions of angels and golden plates and feeling that the Book of Mormon was true would be enough which contradicts his book and makes it contradict itself for it promises these things.
Moroni 10:3-5 promises that those who sincerely pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true will find that it is true. Mormons interpret that to say that they will get a burning feeling that it is true from God which tells them that it is true. It mentions knowing and not feelings and the Book says that feelings can mislead so it means that the Book will be credible which is completely untrue. It is saying that there will be plenty of archaeological evidence for its claims. This is untrue.
The real test of a true prophet according to Deuteronomy 18 is that the prophet must not be sinless but that he must be extremely honest and truthful for God wouldn’t speak through anybody that would tell or tells something even only the once that is supposed to be from God and which is not from God at all. This implies that we will be able to know if the prophet was this kind of man. But we do not know this of Moses or Joseph Smith or even Jesus for we are missing the favourable first-hand witness of those who knew them best and intimately and the testimony from Smith’s neighbours and friends was that Smith was born liar. Deuteronomy 18 also implies that a false prophet can make loads of predictions that come true but error shows that he is not speaking for God at all so miracles prove nothing according to this chapter. But at the same time, it is better to do miracles for it shows you should get attention but not necessarily faith. A real prophet will always do miracles. Smith did none. He made no predictions of the future that are convincing evidence that he was able to see the future by the power of God. When a prophet has to be accurate in everything he says that is supposed to be inspired by God it follows that it is only right that the prophet make predictions and not be accepted until the prophecies have all come true (this automatically excludes Isaiah and Ezekiel who made prophecies that have not been all fulfilled yet from the Bible canon). For if a man making one false prophecy in the name of God is enough to take away any right to authority from him then a man who makes none and claims to be God’s mouthpiece is worse. The Jews and Christians did not insert Deuteronomy 18 for it makes good sense and would only have made it harder for their false prophets who allegedly rewrote the Bible to succeed.
Alma said to Korihor, “Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Alma 30:44). This appeals to the argument from design. The error in this is assuming that this indicates that there is one supreme creator. There could be several equal designers with none being supreme who planned what they were going to do. Moses 6:63 also testifies that Alma’s argument is correct. When Alma says the design points to one God he clearly proves that the Mormon doctrine that many gods made all things was an afterthought and a heresy.
The Book of Mormon claims that there can be no law where there is no punishment for breaking the law (Alma 42:19) and uses this as the rationale behind the doctrine that Jesus died to pay for sins other people committed so that God would forgive. That is not true. Punishment is based on the idea of free will and merit – you deserve suffering for inflicting suffering in so far as you did it of your own free will. But many Atheists believe that the law can be safeguarded without belief in free will. Undoubtedly it can.
Smith contradicted the Book of Mormon in later revelations. He did not really believe in it himself. Jacob 2:24 reads, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." Doctrine & Covenants 132:38-39 reads, "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon ... and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me." Mormons say that God forbids unauthorised plural marriage in Jacob. But if its unauthorised then why is it called an abomination? That is like saying that eating cake is okay with permission but an abomination if it is eaten without it. It would be too severe. And Jacob mentions nothing about authorised or unauthorised.
The Book of Mormon says that three witnesses are needed before any charge against an elder can be listened to (Moroni 6:7). Ether 5:3,4 requires three witnesses to see the Golden Plates. But we have only Mormon and Moroni’s word for the Book of Mormon if we assume that Smith was telling the truth (which really just leaves one witness, Smith). Mormon died in battle and who knows what Moroni was doing after that? So we really have one witness, Moroni! Perhaps they made the whole thing up or Moroni alone did it? Worse, perhaps Joseph Smith did get gold plates and the commission to translate them but he decided not to bother and faked the translation. Mormon scriptures admit that Smith disobeyed God and was chastised by him after he received the plates. The point is, we have only Smith’s word for it that the Book of Mormon is what is on the plates. Mormons answer that God told the three witnesses that the translation was true but we are not given God’s exact words. Maybe he only said, “These are the plates of Mormon and my translation of them is to be believed”, meaning he wanted them to believe his translation which may or may not have been effected properly by Smith. Even Mormons now say that prophets can get things wrong because they misinterpret things. How do they know then that the apostles misunderstood the resurrection of Jesus and that what they saw was not Jesus at all?
It is a sin to give beggars nothing and it will put you in Hell forever (Mosiah 4:16-18). But no matter what we have there is somebody who needs it more so nobody will go to Heaven even though the Book of Mormon teaches that perfect obedience is required for eternal salvation implying that we can go there (2 Nephi 25:23).
In 1 Nephi 4 the Holy Spirit tells Nephi to kill Laban in Palestine for no reason. The excuse the spirit gave was that it is better for one man to die than for a nation to perish in unbelief. Laban had scriptures he would not give up but that was hardly a reason for killing him. This event contradicts the Book of Mormon’s stance against murder. The nation God was worried about was the one that would be formed in America for Nephi and co left soon after. But God could have looked after their faith without requiring murder.
1 Nephi 10:4 says that God will raise up a messiah which in other words means saviour of the world. The word messiah does not mean saviour of the world at all but anointed one or king. The Mormon Church says that since the Messiah would have to be the saviour the difficulty vanishes. But when the verse could mean that Messiah is the same word as saviour that is how we must take it for the Mormons are assuming the Book does not contradict itself which is an unscientific approach.
Although the Book of Mormon denies that babies are sinners and need baptism it does teach that all mankind is lost because of the sin of Adam and Eve (2 Nephi 2:21; Jacob 7:12). Moroni 8:8-12 says that babies have no sins and do not need baptism and that the atonement takes the curse of Adam away from them. The idea is that God did not and would not count babies to be sinners because of Adam but still rejected and cursed them because of the decision Adam made for them. Or it could be that they are conceived as sinful and sharing Adam’s sin but this sin is wiped away by Jesus as soon as it appears. It depends on what the curse of Adam means. The Book of Mormon may have some slight differences from the Christian Church about original sin but the essentials are there. It is far more Christian than the Bible but the doctrine that babies suffer for Adam’s sin is evil and since this sin is at the root of the Christian plan of salvation the whole plan is made corrupt by it for evil trees have evil roots.
Moroni 8:13 says that if little children could not be saved without baptism they must go to Hell forever and ever. But God could do something else with them or reincarnate them so to say they must go to Hell is irrational and simplistic. Verse 15 claims that there is no wickedness more awful than to suppose a child goes to Heaven for being baptised while another child does not for it was not baptised. But what about adults some of whom repent and are baptised and saved and others who repent and can’t get baptised and who go to Hell? It is clear that this verse destroys the Book of Mormon doctrine that baptism is essential for the salvation of adults for the principle in it undermines it. The Book of Mormon threatens eternal damnation on those who hold that infant baptism is necessary for the salvation of children while it is no better itself and verse 16 has Moroni claim divine inspiration for his assertion!
The Book of Mormon cannot be taken seriously as the word of God. This is what the facts state. Prophets and Churches come and go but the facts endure forever.
A GATHERING OF SAINTS, Robert Lindsay, Corgi, London, 1990
A MARVELLOUS WORK AND A WONDER, LeGrand Richards, Deseret Books, Utah, 1976
AN ADDRESS TO ALL BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, David Whitmer, Board of Publications of The Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Lacy Road, Independence, Missouri
ARE THE MORMON SCRIPTURES RELIABLE? Harry L Ropp, IVP, Illinois, 1987
ASK YOUR BISHOP, Ira T Ransom, 317 W 7th South, Brigham City, UT 84302
CHANGES IN JOSEPH SMITH’S HISTORY, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1965
CHANGING OF THE REVELATIONS, Apostle Daniel McGregor, Church of Christ, Independence, Missouri
GOD’S WORD FINAL INFALLIBLE AND FOREVER, Floyd C McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, 1985
CONCISE GUIDE TO TODAY’S RELIGIONS, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Scripture Press, Bucks, 1983
HOW TO ANSWER A MORMON, Robert A Morey, Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1983
JOSEPH SMITH AND MONEY DIGGING, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1970
JOSEPH SMITH’S BAINBRIDGE NY COURT TRIALS, Wesley P Walters, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, 1977
LARSON’S BOOK OF CULTS, Bob Larson, Tyndale, Wheaton, Illinois, 1988
LEAVING THE SAINTS, Martha Beck, Portrait, London, 2005
MORMONISM SHADOW OR REALITY? Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1972
MORMONISM, AA Hoekema, Paternoster Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978
MORMONISM, MAGIC AND MASONRY, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1988
MORMONISM, MAMA AND ME, Thelma Geer, Calvary Missionary Press, Arizona, 1983
MORMONISM, THE PROPHET, THE BOOK AND THE CULT, Peter Bartley, Veritas, Dublin, 1989
NEW LIGHT ON MORMON ORIGINS, Rev Wesley P Walters, Utah Christian Tract Society, 1967
NO MAN KNOWS MY HISTORY, Fawn M Brodie, Vintage, New York, 1995
SOME MODERN FAITHS, Maurice C Burrell and J Stafford Wright, IVP, Leics, 1988
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, Touchstone Books, New York, 2002
THE BOOK OF COMMANDMENTS, Church of Christ, Temple Lot, Independence, Missouri, 1995
THE BOOK OF MORMON, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Deseret Enterprises Ltd, Manchester, UK, 1972
THE CASE AGAINST MORMONISM, VOL 2, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1968
THE FACTS OF MORMONISM ARE STRANGER THAN FICTION, Charles Crane and J Edward Decker, Christian Information Outreach, Kent, 1982
THE HUMAN ORIGIN OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, Wesley P Walters, Ex-Mormons for Jesus, Florida 1979
WHY THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WAS ESTABLISHED ANEW IN 1929?, Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Independence, Missouri
THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES
Excellent refutation of the claims of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon
Barry R Bickmore
MORMON SCHOLARSHIP, APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELICAL NEGLECT, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen,
BOOK OF MORMON QUESTIONS
MORMONISM UNVAILED: MORE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS TRUE. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
THE ABRIDGEMENT OF D&C 137
THE BOOK OF MORMON: ONE TOO MANY M’S Stephen Van Eck
This shows that when Smith translated the book of Abraham he invented hieroglyphics where there was a piece missing from the papyri. The characters Smith added make no sense to translators. Yet he translated these imaginary hieroglyphics! His mother and close associate David Whitmer spoke of Joseph copying characters of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon before he translated and that like the Book of Abraham Smith often produced two lines in the manuscript with the translation of a single character which shows that the whole Book of Mormon thing was a hoax.
by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Gathers evidence that indicates that it was possible that Smith was insane and had manic depression.
DR CHARLES ANTHON RE AUTHENTICITY OF WRITING SAMPLES ALLEGEDLY COPIED FROM THE GOLDEN PLATES
INTERVIEW OF MARTIN HARRIS
COMMENTS ON THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES: A RESPONSE TO JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER
A ridiculous rebuttal that has been taken into account for this book and refuted.
FACTS ON THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES, PART 1
Excellent refutation of the reliability of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon
THE STOLEN MANUSCRIPT