How does mormonism contradict the bible

Nothing has ever been found on that hill or anywhere else in this continent. As a matter of fact, metal, helmets, swords, etc. Before the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah, it was literally dug full of holes and even caves, but nothing was ever found. Joseph Smith told about a cave inside Hill Cumorah and how they — he and Oliver — went in and out of it. Supposedly it had wagon loads of gold plates, Laban sword, etc.

When people dig even for worms in the Holy Land, they make discoveries. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, cities, places, coins, clothing, swords, etc. There are still people in the LDS Church who believe that archaeology has proved, at least to a degree, the Book of Mormon. Some missionaries are still using slide presentations of ruins from Mexico and South America, implying that they prove the Book of Mormon, but they are from an entirely different time period and are ruins of idol worshipers who offered human sacrifices.

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles of books full of archaeological half-truths, dilettante on peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book of Mormon archaeology really exists… no Book of Mormon location is known… Biblical archaeology can be studied, because we know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful nor any location for that matter were or are….

Thomas S. Ferguson was a firm believer and he was sure that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. But in spite of all the efforts, by , he had come to the conclusion that all had been in vain, that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and that Mormonism was not true.

He was a man who had devoted his entire life, even before starting this foundation, to Mormonism. He had written a book called One Fold and One Shepherd in defense of Mormonism, but later he had to admit that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. The Book of Abraham was perhaps the final straw for him, as well as for many others who were more aware of the problems in Mormonism.

Another example is B. Roberts, noted scholar and a General Authority in the Mormon Church, whose secret manuscript has only fairly recently been published, and who had come to question the Book of Mormon quite some time before Ferguson did. In this manuscript he admitted that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with what is now known from twentieth century archaeological investigation about the early inhabitants of America.

This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon , p. The latter had lots to say about the Hebrew origin of American Indians and their advanced culture and civilization. Roberts then asks,. Not from the Book of Mormon, which is as yet, a sealed book to him…. These evening recitals could come from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith, a remarkable power which attended him through all his life.

Prior to this, B. Roberts was known as a great defender of Mormonism, and he is still considered one of the greatest scholars the LDS Church has ever had. He wrote the six volume Comprehensive History of the Church, and many other works as well.

The aforementioned manuscript, Book of Mormon Difficulties , a Study is now available in bookstores under the title of Studies of the Book of Mormon.

There would be much, much more to say as to why the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record but an obvious production of a very intelligent and creative person, Joseph Smith, who used a number of books, including the Bible, to create it. None of the important Mormon doctrines of today are in the Book of Mormon.

Eternal progression : God could not have progressed from man to God : Alma , 3 Ne. Secret combinations or oaths in temples : Mormon ; 2 Ne. That there is only one God : Mosiah ; ; ; ; Alma , 38, 39, 44;. Doctrines like temple or eternal marriage, priesthoods, etc. It becomes quite obvious to an investigator of Mormonism that after or so Joseph Smith changed his mind about who God is. He contradicted the Book of Mormon with the Doctrine and Covenants, i. The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God….

God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. In November , when discovered Egyptian Papyri was given back by the Metropolitan Museum to the Mormon Church, this generated a great amount of excitement in the hearts of Mormons.

By the way, why not the current prophet of the Church? After this papyri was evaluated, even Professor Nibley had to agree that it was a production of not older than A. That was the first blow. The second blow came after they were given to several qualified Egyptologists; they were clearly shown to not to be what Joseph Smith had said the Book of Abraham was. Expectations of the Church members had been high. Sidney B. Sperry, one of the most noted scholars, had said:.

Many Mormon writers have admitted that this is the case. LDS doctrine on blacks and the priesthood is was based on this Book of Abraham. The only thing that the Utah Mormon Church did was allow blacks to have the priesthood. But all in all, thinking people started to see that a huge shadow was now cast also on the Book of Mormon. Yet none has occurred. Because cultural Mormons, of course, do not believe in the historical authenticity of Mormon scriptures in the first place. So there is nothing to disconfirm.

Emphasis added. Polygamy, as we have mentioned at the beginning, was the issue that led to the killing of Joseph Smith. Stated briefly,it came about as a result of a discussion between Joseph, his brother Hyrum, and William Clayton, who wrote it down. Family life was not very happy and calm.

Joseph was relating this to his brother Hyrum and William Clayton. Joseph doubted Emma would believe that. However, William Clayton wrote it down and Hyrum took it to Emma. Emma of course did not believe it. Later on, Joseph somehow convinced her to accept it, which she did for a short time, but after his death, Emma went into a total denial of polygamy as if it had never happened.

Many thought that her reasons were to protect her children and their memory of their father. Genealogical Archives were used to add another Nauvoo Temple records were the main source. Fanny Alger was his first plural wife, married to Joseph in This kind of altering of the records of the Church can be noticed quite often by comparing the earlier printings with the more recent ones.

Obvious attempts were thus made to save some integrity, since Joseph Smith already had been a polygamist years before Therefore this alteration of the records did not bolster his image since he and the Church leaders had denied polygamy publicly but practiced it secretly. Historical Records of these strange marriages are available. According to these records, 9 of the first 12 polygamous wives of Joseph Smith were at the same time married also to other men. A few examples might properly be presented here:.

She married Norman Buell in and they had two children. Joseph married her in the fall of and had a child by her. She continued to be married to Buell also. As shown by the acceptance of the extra-biblical works, Mormons maintain a canon open to further revelation from God.

Mormons believe that the death of the apostles led to the death of apostolic succession and that the traditional church perpetuated a false line of apostolic succession. Christian critics argue that the canon is closed because the last two verses of the Book of Revelation say that if you add or subtract from the New Testament you will be accursed, but Mormons hold this warning to be only true of the Book of Revelation and not the entire Bible.

Robinson states that it is unbiblical to believe that the Bible is a closed canon as there is no biblical statement within it that prohibits additional revelation and that the Book of Revelation was written prior to the formation of the Bible; therefore, the warning can only speak to its own book. Another point of divergence between traditional Christian doctrine and Mormon doctrine is the belief in human deification and thus the nature of God. According to a recent study, over three-quarters of Mormons surveyed stated belief in pre-mortal existence of humans as spirits, human deification during mortal life, and eternal marriage after death.

Mormons also present the fact that orthodox Christian groups have a similar view toward human deification. However, Bill McKeever, an American author and well-known critic of Mormonism, asserts that the divide is just too wide for Mormonism to be considered Christian. The belief that God is married is unique to Mormonism. This belief is integral to the Mormon belief in eternal marriage as necessary for exaltation in the afterlife.

Further, it contributes to the feelings that Mormonism is different and thus is not Christian. One of the preeminent responses given by non-Mormons of why Mormons are not Christian is they do not believe in the Trinity.

A further affront to Christian views is the belief that Jesus was simply the first born of God and thus is an elder brother to all humanity or deity, in another perspective.

Mormons believe that because Jesus reached a pinnacle of intelligence he was ranked as a God and became the Creator and infinite saviour. Further, he asserts that Mormons do in fact believe in a sort of trinity because they believe there are three members in the Godhead but that they are three distinct personages, beings, or separate gods.

There is pracitcally no trace of the material culture described in the Book of Mormon--no coins, no metal weapons, no metal writing, no extensive road systems, no chariots, no horses. Most of the key agricultural products listed in the Book of Mormon simply did not exist in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans.

The scant correlations that do exist are not nearly enough to substantiate the validity of the book, and can reasonably be declared coincidental. In addition, nothing in either the written or oral traditions of the native populations, who are supposedly the descendants of the Book of Mormon peoples, relates to the history described in the Book of Mormon.

Certain attempts have been made to establish links between Native lore and Book of Mormon events e. On practically every front, the data that exists not only fails to corroborate the Book of Mormon, but in fact contradicts it. This is not the case for the information that we find for the Bible. While the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible is not comprehensive, it is significant. So when we put the Book of Mormon next to the Bible, the comparison is very stark.

It is ironic, then, that "the most correct of any book on earth" fails these tests miserably, and yet the book that is "corrupt and mutilated" passes with flying colors. So how do we determine what is the Word of God? The notion that the Bible had undergone such a disturbing process of mutilation, corruption, and removal of "plain and precious" things is unfounded. It contradicts not only the evidence at hand, but it also presumes that the Lord is unable to maintain the integrity of His word and consequently, His church.

The Bible itself speaks to this:. For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, 'All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever. We can determine that the Bible has a very high degree of textual reliability; we can be confident that the text that we know today is a faithful rendering of the original writings.

And the areas of uncertainty that do exist are well-documented and not substantial. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has no textual record, so it cannot even be tested. When we examine what archaeology, anthropology, history, and external witnesses have to say about the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the Bible comes up with a substantial degree of correlation; people, places, events, cultures, empires, etc. In contrast, the Book of Mormon has no meaningful external support, and in fact, is contradicted by the data that does exist.

Even if we establish the textual reliability and the historical authenticity of a book, this doesn't necessarily mean it is scripture--the Word of God. So here, finally, Mormons and Christians are in agreement--this is a matter of faith. However, the agreement stops there. Often Mormons are taught that it is possible--and even virtuous --to have faith that is blind, that flies in the face of reality.

Intellectualism and science are mistrusted. We hold, however, that faith need not--and should not --be blind to reality. Can something be false by all normal reckoning, and yet considered "true" spiritually? This is absurd. If the Book of Mormon has no textual support, no corroborative evidence to speak of and plenty of contradictory evidence , there really is little doubt that it cannot be what it claims to be--the Word of God.

That is, unless you are willing to accept God being a liar. So here, in a nutshell, are the results:. The faith that it takes to believe in the Bible as the Word of God is not based on subjective feelings or desires; it is based on facts.

Let us presume--hypothetically--that the Bible had the same kinds of problems that the Book of Mormon had. Suppose, for example, that there was no way of identifying any of the places the Bible describes. Suppose we couldn't even agree on the general region where the stories supposedly took place. Suppose that there was no external reference to Jesus Christ, or many of the others mentioned in the Bible.

Suppose that there was no evidence that the empires and people groups--the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, or for that matter, even the Jews--ever existed. Suppose that the general cultural picture painted by the Bible was completely contradicted by the overwhelming amount of archaeology that has been done in the Middle East.

Would we have reason to question the validity of the Bible? Because if this were the case, there would be no evidence suggesting that it told a true story, and plenty to suggest that it was nothing but a myth. C] Acts …For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

Israel is the Promised Land Gen. Further reading Mormons in Transition website. Also see here. History, , Joseph Smith Letterbook 1 , p. Find us on Facebook.