Book of Mormon Criticisms
(c) Copyright Michael R. Ash 2000. All rights reserved
Anti charge:
...when questioned closely the witnesses said they never really saw the gold plates except when they were wrapped up or covered. They used terms like “vision” or “I saw them with the eye of faith.” ...Of these eleven total witnesses, over half apostatized from the Mormon church.... Joseph Smith and other Mormon officials are on record as calling his three main witnesses “thieves and liars.” In History of the Church Joseph Smith said, “Such characters as ... David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention, and we would like to have forgotten them.” (McElveen, 48-49.)
The testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer) has been a thorn in the side of the critics for more than a century and a half (read this testimony). Many critics have tried to ignore their testimonies, while others have simply glossed over their significance. Those who have attempted to tackle the issue generally have relied on ad hominem arguments– attacking the credibility, honesty, or motives of the Three Witnesses.
What possible motives might have driven the Three Witnesses to proclaim (and maintain) their testimonies? It is important to keep in mind that these three men never denied their testimonies. Throughout their entire lives they claimed that an angel of God had shown them the Book of Mormon plates. Trying times arose in each of their lives– persecution, loss of financial gains, etc. Each of these men separated themselves from the Mormon Church at some point in their lives for one reason or another. Some may think this shows that neither the Book of Mormon, nor the LDS Church are true. On the contrary, we point out the significance of the departure of the faith by these three men because despite their loss of membership, they continued to affirm their testimonies of the Book of Mormon. Both Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery rejoined the Church at later dates, but although David Whitmer did not, he maintained to his death that his testimony was true. Think of the significance. Despite excommunicate, embarrassment, and ill-feelings, these men knew they had seen an angel; they knew they had heard a voice from heaven declaring the book’s authenticity; and they knew that the Book of Mormon was the word of God.
Some may wonder why any of these witnesses could ever leave or be excommunicated from the Mormon Church. All men make mistakes, and these men were no different. The times in which these men lived were trying times, times when persecution against the Mormons was severe, to say the least. Did not Judas betray Christ? Judas, an Apostle chosen by the Lord himself? Are we to conclude therefore that Christianity is a fraud? Did not Peter deny Christ three times? Peter, who was the chief Apostle, and an Apostle who performed great works both during and after Christ’s ministry? Did not King David fall from favor in the eyes of God due to his sins?
As I see it, there are five possible motives for proclaiming their testimony, and possible motives for maintaining their testimonies.
Possible Motives for Proclaiming Their Testimonies
1) Wealth– If the Book of Mormon were to become a best seller, they might see lucrative returns by falsely testifying to have seen the angel and plates. Perhaps they even thought they would start an organization by which they could con thousands of people out of their money.
2) Fame– The Three Witnesses might have hoped that people the world over would have been impressed by their false testimonies and might have shown them the adulation reserved for royalty.
3) Power– Tied to both wealth and fame, the Three Witnesses might have falsely testified in hopes of gaining power of other people. Such power might secure them financially for the rest of their lives.
4) Duped– They might have been duped by Joseph Smith or their own fantasies. Perhaps Joseph Smith was such a brilliant con artist that he was able to prey upon their own desires and lunatic fantasies that he helped them think they had seen an angel and the plates.
5) Truth_ They might have been telling the truth. They might have really seen an angel of God, and heard the voice of the Lord. Perhaps they really had seen the Book of Mormon plates and testified as to what they had seen.
Possible Motives for Maintaining Their Testimonies
1) Wealth– If the Three Witnesses had become rich for their false testimonies, there would be justification for maintaining their testimonies throughout their lives. If they became rich from such a con, they might have been afraid to tell the truth and lose their wealth.
2) Fear of Notoriety– If they had falsified their testimonies and told the truth later, they might have feared negative repercussions. If they had become famous for their testimonies and had the adulation of thousands of their fellow citizens, they might have been afraid to lose that status.
3) Fear of Loss of Power– If the Three Witnesses had knowingly duped the public, and had become powerful men in their community or false organization because of it, they might have feared losing that power if they revealed the truth.
4) Embarrassment– If these witnesses had been duped by their own wishful thinking or cunning talents of Joseph Smith, they might have been embarrassed to admit that they were such fools.
5) Truth– If these witnesses had told the truth, and if they were honorable men, they wouldn’t deny their testimonies.
The reader will notice that the scenarios requiring the witnesses to maintain their testimonies are dependant on what factors caused them to proclaim their testimonies. Having noted the various possibilities, let’s examine each one in turn.
Wealth
If the Three Witnesses were after wealth, there must have been some indication from the beginning that wealth could be derived from such a venture. Nobody makes a blind investment with so much at stake unless there is some hope of a reward. Was there hope? Looking back after the fact, many critics are convinced that the hope of riches was the driving motive of the young Joseph Smith. “‘If there is one fact in American history that can be regarded as definitely established,’” wrote one such critic, “‘it is that the engaging Joe Smith was a deliberate charlatan. ...’” ( Earnest S. Bates, American Faith [New York: W. W. Norton, 1940], p. 346, quoted in Nibley [1978b], 214) Referring to Joseph Smith, another critic wrote: “‘the seer of Palmyra was almost certainly a cunning imposter.’” (W. S. Simpson, Mormonism [London: 1853], p. 6, quoted in Nibley [1978b], 214.)
One of the characteristics of a successful con-man is his ability to give the people want they want, to entice them with something attractive, and to demonstrate a talent for understanding human nature. So what did Joseph Smith have to offer? Merely a lengthy book claiming to be the record of the former inhabitants of the Americas. Enticing as a novel.... but what if he were to claim that such a book was sacred scripture and authentic ancient history? How would it be received? Could he get away with such an arduous venture?
Long ago Friedrich Blass, a non-Mormon scholar and author of the classic work on hermeneutics and criticism (which remains the “stand work” on the subject; see Friedrich Blass, “Hermeneutik und Kritik,” Einleitende und Hilfs_Disziplinen, vol. 1 of Iwan von Müller's Handbuch der klassichen Altertumswissenschaft [Munich: Beck, 1886], 269-272), laid down the rules for testing any document for forgery. A few years ago Dr. Nibley paraphrased these five rules in his “The Book of Mormon: True or False?” (reprinted in Nibley [1989], 219-230.) These rules are:
1. Keep out of the range of unsympathetic critics. There is, Blass insists, no such thing as a clever forgery. No forger can escape detection if somebody really wants to expose him; all the great forgeries discovered to date have been crudely executed (for example, the Piltdown skull), depending for their success on the enthusiastic support of the public or the experts. The Book of Mormon has enjoyed no such support. From the day it appeared, important persons at the urgent demand of an impatient public did everything they could to show it a forgery. And Joseph Smith, far from keeping it out of the hands of unsympathetic critics, did everything he could to put it into those hands. Surely this is not the way of a deceiver.
2. Keep your document as short as possible. The longer a forgery is the more easily it may be exposed, the danger increasing geometrically with the length of the writing. By the time he had gone ten pages, the author of the Book of Mormon knew only too well what a dangerous game he was playing if it was a hoax; yet he carries on undismayed for six hundred pages.
3. Above all, don't write a historical document! They are by far the easiest of all to expose, being full of “things too trifling, too inconspicuous, and too troublesome” for the forger to check up on.
4. After you have perpetrated your forgery, go into retirement or disappear completely. For vanity, according to Blass, is the Achilles’ heel of every forger. A forger is not only a cheat but also a show-off, attempting to put one over on society; he cannot resist the temptation to enjoy his triumph, and if he remains in circulation, inevitably he gives himself away. Joseph Smith ignored any opportunity of taking credit for the Book of Mormon—he took only the responsibility for it.
5. Always leave an escape door open. Be vague and general, philosophize and moralize. Religious immunity has been the refuge of most eminent forgers in the past, beautiful thoughts and pious allegories, deep interpretations of scriptures, mystic communication to the initiated few, these are safe grounds for the pia fraus (“pious fraud”). But the Book of Mormon never uses them. It does not even exploit the convenient philological loophole of being a translation: as an inspired translation it claims all the authority and responsibility of the original. (Nibley [1989], 227-228.)
“To follow Blass,” notes Nibley, “a forger can be sure of himself for two reasons only: either because he is too utterly silly to know what he is up against or because he is immensely clever.” (Ibid., 63.) Critics of the Book of Mormon seem to want it both ways. Now I suppose it’s possible to claim that Joseph Smith was too stupid to understand that a scam such as this was too difficult to be successful. Of course that would mean that Joseph Smith’s work would provide evidence of the same lack of intelligence (unlike the remarkably sober and accurate historical narrative which it is)-- unless, that is, one subscribes to the “idiot-savant” theory (see Hamblin [1993], 173)– the ironical claim of many critics who paint Joseph as a lazy, illiterate lair (see Joseph Smith’s Character [forthcoming]) who didn’t even have enough sense to know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem instead of Jerusalem (see “At Jerusalem” [forthcoming]) while simultaneously charging that he was a cunning deceiver and opportunist who knew how to work a scam and who created the massive Book of Mormon.
Of course if one presumed that Joseph Smith was stupid enough from the beginning to think that he could put in superhuman effort and intellect to produce a fraudulent book to make a fortune, he nevertheless would have known long before investing such Herculean endeavors how the book would be received and if such a con would work.
Not long before Joseph acquired the plates the townspeople were referring to it as the “Golden Bible.” In 1825, two years before Joseph actually received the plates, he and his father went to Pennsylvania for work. While they were gone, a couple of scoundrels nearly stole the Smith’s deed on their house. When Joseph’s mother, Lucy, confronted them, they replied: “‘Oh, no matter about [Joseph] Smith, he has gold plates, gold Bibles, he is rich-- he don’t want anything.’” (Mack Smith, 97.) The Book of Mormon was unpopular before it was even given to Joseph– let alone translated and printed.
After acquiring the plates the persecution increased. In fact it was due to persecution because of the plates that Joseph was forced to move from the clapboard home he had purchased from his father-in-law to Whitmer’s home. Prior to the time when the Three Witnesses and seen and proclaimed their experience, the clergy and press had denounced the Book of Mormon. For example, once while translating, Martin found a stone which closely resembled the seerstone with which Joseph sometimes used when translating. Without Joseph’s knowledge Martin substituted Joseph’s stone with his own. When Joseph began translating, he paused for a long time and then exclaimed, “‘Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.’ Martin then confessed that he wished to ‘stop the mouths of fools’ who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.” (Godfrey, 11) Apparently there were those who already ridiculed Martin for his efforts involving the translation. It is hard to imagine that any of the Three Witnesses would have hoped to get rich from a book which had already been labeled as blasphemous by the people. As Nibley points out, “there are ten thousand safer and easier ways of fooling people than by undertaking a work of infinite toil and danger which, as he could see from the first, only made him immensely unpopular.” (Nibley [1989], 59.)
If there were any expectations of getting rich, such hopes were quickly dashed. The Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel, for example, wrote on June 26, 1829, nearly a year before the Book of Mormon came off the presses (and at about the same time the Three Witnesses had received their experience [see Elden Watson]):
“Just about in this particular region, for some time past, much speculation has existed, concerning a pretended discovery, through superhuman means, of an ancient record, of religious and divine nature and origin, written in ancient characters, impossible to be interpreted by any to whom the special gift has not been imparted by inspiration. It is generally known and spoken of as the ‘Golden Bible.’ Most people entertain an idea that the whole matter is the result of a gross imposition, and a grosser superstition. It is pretended that it will soon be published as soon as the translation is completed”(quoted in Kirkham, v2:28; italics added).
As noted by this Palmyra paper, the Book of Mormon had been “generally known” as the “Golden Bible” for a while, and had “for some time past” had been speculated upon– most people thinking it was a “gross imposition.” What kind of con artist would try to become wealthy by publishing a book which was ridiculed prior to being printed? All signs pointed away from the possibility of becoming wealthy by publishing the Book of Mormon. As Dr. Nibley asked, years ago:
Why would a cunning and ambitious rogue too lazy to do any work invariably choose the hardest, the most dangerous, and the least rewarding ways of getting what he wanted—especially since he is supposed to have had an uncanny insight into the foibles of human nature?
...In real life lazy loafers do not write big books, opportunistic charlatans do not risk their lives in hard and exhausting projects when by changing their tune they could become rich and respectable, and ambitious men with keen insight into human nature don't insist on doing and saying just the things that are bound to offend the most people the most.”(Nibley [1978b], 214)
There is no evidence– in fact the evidence is contrary– to the claim that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon to get rich. Why then would his comrades– the Three Witnesses– expect to get rich when Joseph Smith most certainly did not? They were just as cognizant as Joseph was to the unpopularity of the Book of Mormon before it was published. It is incredulous to believe that these four men would attempt to become rich from such a plan. We must remove the possibility of Wealth from our list of motives for the Three Witnesses proclaiming and maintaining their testimonies.
Fame- Proclaim; Fear of Notoriety- Maintain
It could be suggested that the Three Witnesses sought fame for claiming to be special witnesses to the Book of Mormon and maintained their testimonies throughout their lives in fear of the notoriety they would incur should they confess that they were either parties to a scam or mindless dupes who were tricked by the clever con artist, Joseph Smith. Based on our discussion on “wealth” what kind of “fame” could they have expected to receive for taking any part in the Book of Mormon story. They already knew that it was unpopular with the general public. What they did receive, by attaching their testimonies to the book was notoriety. They were scorned, ridiculed, and even threatened with their lives because of their testimonies. On the other hand, if they would have exposed the wicked Joseph Smith as a fraud and claimed that he was so clever that they had been duped, they would have been famous the world over for exposing the clever deceiver. This claim, like the first, just doesn’t fit the facts.
Power- Proclaim; Loss of Power- Maintain
Some might be tempted to suggest that Joseph and his comrades were seeking power. They knew they would acquire a following and that in styles similar to that of “cult” leaders they sought the power they would surely be invested with by proclaiming and maintaining their testimonies (regardless of whether this testimony was based on real feelings or as part of a scam). The problem with this claim is that very little “power” or authority was given to the witnesses in the early Church and what authority they did receive was stripped away upon excommunication. To strip this “power” from an accomplice in any scam would assuredly move a conspirator to unmask the truth about the angel and the plates. When Oliver Cowdery returned to the Church after several years of separation, he returned to the bottom of the ranks, like any other new convert. Surely, if Cowdery had been in on a scheme for power he would have asked for, and received, a position of authority for his part in the scam. The argument for “power” is as spurious as the previous two charges.
Duped - Proclaim; Embarrassment- Maintain
There are those critics who will charge that the Three Witnesses were not party to a scam but were merely duped by a clever con man– Joseph Smith. Of course if this were the case we would ask for Joseph’s motive. Aside from the fact that Joseph had no apparent motive other than to be believed, we find that this argument against the Three Witnesses is as thin as the previous charges.
Perhaps the Three Witnesses and all the succeeding Mormons simply have been entranced by Joseph’s charisma and “magnetic appeal.” This is the claim made by some critics. This theory, however, has several flaws. First, there were many people who hated Joseph, simply for what he taught, and no amount of appeal could win them over. Second, even members of the Church, such as the Three Witnesses who left the faith, and had bitter feelings toward Joseph, never denied their testimonies. Thirdly, as Nibley points out, “the church [in subsequent years] derived its numbers and its strength largely from European converts who had never set eyes on Joseph Smith.” (Nibley [1946], 43.)
Some critics have suggested that the witnesses’ encounter with the angel and the plates took place only in their minds. Such critics claim that witnesses saw the angel in a “vision” and equate “vision” with imagination. To bolster this claim they generally cite two supposed quotes from Martin Harris (see my article on Martin Harris for more details on his testimony). John Gilbert, the printer for the original Book of Mormon, claimed that he asked Harris about his testimony. “‘Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?” Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, ‘No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.’” (Wood [1958], introduction.) The second citation comes from Anthony Metcalf’s interview with Harris who supposedly said, “‘I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.’” (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71; quoted in Morgan)
Harris doesn’t deny seeing the angel and the plates, but according to these two interviewers he suggested that his view of the angel and plates was encompassed in some type of vision. Does “visionary” mean “imaginary?” 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”(Millennial Star September 15, 1853; quoted in Reynolds and Sjodahl, 4:436) and that they weighed approximately fifty pounds (Tiffany’s Monthly 5, no. 2 [New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, 1859], 166.) 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 Harris that he had merely imaged that he (and the other two witnesses) had seen 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.” (Anderson [1981], 116.)
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.” (Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, Mar. 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Ida., 1888), p. 74; quoted in Anderson [1981], 86.)
David Whitmer (who never rejoined the Church) continued to maintain his testimony despite possible embarrassment for doing so– considering that he was constantly questioned and criticized for his testimony and was no longer a Mormon. David, like the other witnesses had been charged with being deluded into thinking he had seen an angel and the plates. One observer remembers when David was such 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!’”(Ibid., 88.)
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;) (2 Cor. 12:2-3.)
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 (see his testimonies in my article on Harris), yet he also knew that when the angel showed him the plates he was only able to see them by the power of God.
Could the Three Witnesses have been so caught up in the excitement that they imagined they saw an angel, or lied about seeing an angel to heighten the stimulation? An affirmative answer may suffice for testifying in the “heat of the moment,” but this explanation is not satisfactory when we look at the testimony that they continued to proclaim throughout their lives-- through persecution, financial ruin, excommunication, embarrassment, and bitter-feelings. A testimony born in the excitement of the moment would die quickly under such adverse conditions. And as my separate articles on the each of the Three Witnesses indicate (see Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer), these men maintain the veracity of their testimonies throughout their lives. It would be a tougher argument to win, claiming that these men were duped or imagined that they had seen and angel, heard a voice from heaven, and saw the Book of Mormon plates, then to argue that they were really witnesses to these miraculous events.
Truth
Lastly, there are millions of people who believe that the witnesses told the truth. The witnesses believed that they were telling the truth. Joseph Smith had no other motive for his claims other than that he wished to be believed. He wanted to share his spiritual experience and his translation of an ancient scripture which testified of the Living God and offered another testament of the Savior Jesus Christ to the world. If the testimony of the Three Witnesses is true– and all evidence suggests that it is– then the Book of Mormon would demand the careful consideration of anyone who seeks to better understand their place in the eternities. To once again quote Dr. Hugh Nibley:
...the Book of Mormon, whatever one may think of it, is one of the great realities of our time, and what makes it so is that certain people believe it. Its literary or artistic qualities do not enter into the discussion: it was written to be believed. Its one and only merit is truth. Without that merit, it is all that nonbelievers say it is. With that merit, it is all that believers say it is. And we must insist on this truism because it supplies a valuable clue to the authorship of the book.
Joseph Smith wanted only one thing of the Book of Mormon-- that people should believe it. The story never sold well and only made trouble for the “author.” Those who believed he was a prophet would have believed him just as much without the Book of Mormon. His enemies would have had far less against him– the Book of Mormon might even be called his undoing. From the day he received the plates it gave him only trouble and pain.
But leave Joseph Smith out of it. Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon wanted before all else that people should believe in it. But what could any impostor gain by that? A deceiver would want people to buy the book, and would write a book that would sell-- what concern of his whether anyone believed it or not? That rules out anyone but Joseph Smith as the author, for his case only was strengthened by such belief.
...Joseph Smith was either the fantastic, preposterous, implausible genie his enemies describe-- perpetrating the most monstrous crimes ever conceived by man with a clear countenance and sunny disposition, performing prodigies of labor for no reward but danger and contempt, engineering the most fiendishly cunning, criminal operations completely without motive-- or else he was telling the truth. There is no middle way, for the Book of Mormon was given to the world as scripture, to be believed in the most literal sense. It is that aspect of it which gives us the key to the book's authorship. One can imagine all sorts of things, but one cannot imagine any inhabitant of this planet composing just this type of book in the nineteenth century. It is to other ages that we must turn for the prototypes of the Book of Mormon. (Nibley [1989], 86-87)
Fortunately, thanks to the recent and ongoing scholarship, the Book of Mormon accurately fits both the Old and New Worlds from whence it claims to have derived. But this is a topic for elsewhere.
Michael R. Ash
Return to Mormon Fortress