The Book of Mormon - False Testament

Introduction

While reading the Book of Mormon, this so-called “other testament of Jesus Christ,” I noticed something very eye-opening, something that gives away the true nature and origin of this book. As a preacher I spend a great deal of time reading, studying and memorizing the Bible, therefore I am very familiar with scripture. It is important for you to know this so you will understand what a startling thing it was for me to observe what I observed in the Book of Mormon.

Plucked from the Bible 

As I was reading the Book of Mormon I noticed that over and over Biblical phrases were used, many reproduced verbatim from the Bible. In fact, after a careful reading of the entire book of Moroni (last section in the Book of Mormon) I noticed 50 to 100 places where various sections in the Old Testament and New Testament were directly quoted or indirectly referenced. The only thing Joe Smith didn’t do was provide citations explicitly stating this information comes directly from the Bible. The quotations and references were used in a way indicative of a person with an expansive knowledge of scripture and doctrine. I noticed references to advanced doctrinal concepts like the “judgment seat of Christ” and the “second coming." In fact, my impression was that this was someone very well schooled in Baptist doctrine. But the overriding impression it gave me was that it was written by someone trying to assemble a “holy” book by quoting, paraphrasing and restating sections of scripture from the Bible. This was so obvious it was breathtaking. Not only did it refer to 50 plus Biblical concepts in about ten chapters, but it seemed to bounce around inside the Bible almost hunting for something else to make the book a little longer. It gave me the clear impression that this was written by someone desperately trying to write a substantial document, but struggling to come up with the appropriate volume of content to make it seem valid.

Infant Baptism 

Much to my amazement this impression was greatly strengthened by a section that was not a simple restatement and reorganization of existing scripture. This section set about to establish a treatise against infant baptism. Infant baptism, a Romish doctrine whose vestige can still be found in the protestant denominations that came out of the reformation, is a concept foreign to scripture. It is designed around the false Roman Catholic hope that a church has the power to save. Groups like the Anabaptists, who were always on the outside of the Roman Catholic Church and not involved or even interested in reforming this harlot, have always stood against this false abominable, sacrilegious ritual. Many thousands of people were brutally killed by the Roman Catholic Church for this stand. As such, we Baptists that trace our roots to these groups continue to stand on the Bible on this issue. The Bible nowhere commands anything even remotely similar to this practice, thus it is rejected as false doctrine. So you can imagine my amazement when I see a fully developed refutation of this practice in the Book of Mormon. How convenient that this doctrinal nugget is one of the scriptural additions in what is largely a hodgepodge of biblical concepts lifted from a wide variety of locations in both testaments. Again, it seems to be an obvious attempt to add words to a document that has no new revelation to offer. An attempt that is clearly being made by someone thoroughly schooled in Baptist distinctives and prevalent doctrinal issues.

Elizabethton English 

Another obvious giveaway about the true nature of the Book of Mormon is the use of Elizabethton English. The King James Bible (KJB), the seventh in the line of English reformation Bibles, and the preserved Word of God for English speaking people, was written in this language style. When the KJB was written the English language had become fully mature. Don’t let anyone deceive you with comments about the King James be written in “Old English.” This is patently false. Old English contained so many component words from other languages that you could not even read it today if you are only familiar with English. By contrast, the Elizabethton English of the KJB is the absolute pinnacle of modern English linguistics. It has an architectural structure that is unparalleled in phonetics, syntax, semantics and morphology. It is this distinctiveness that sets it apart in a world of books and other Bible versions that read like cereal boxes. It is also another trap Smith fell into when writing his false testament. The Book of Mormon attempts to use this advanced and elegant form of English, but does so poorly. I saw plenty of “thees” and “thous,” but what I did not see was the prevalent cadences of Elizabethton English. Any Bible believer who has spent a few thousand hours in the KJB knows that book has a particular rhythm. We also know historically that the KJB translators loved the unique cadences found the in the Hebrew and Greek, and made it their mission to convey these in the translation to English. They did this because they believed that these cadences could play a part in how God reveals Himself through the Word. Wow, what a powerful thought, a thought I find extremely compelling. In fact, I believe it is fulfilling that purpose as I write this refutation of the Book of Mormon.

Lack of Heart 

A final missing element in the Book of Mormon is heart. This is a difficult concept to convey, but one that is very real nonetheless. The writers of scripture in the Bible had an almost forceful edge about what they wrote. You can practically taste the passion with which these books were written. The great majority of God’s chosen prophets, Old and New Testament alike, often endured incredible trials and struggles in their efforts to fulfill their ministerial callings. Accordingly their writings, the inspired scriptures of the Bible, were written with a great sense of purpose and feeling. I can’t tell you how many times I have read the Bible and came away crying, or simply amazed at the power and depth of what is contained between the covers of that book. Take the book of Galatians for example. This book details a showdown between Paul and Peter on the infinitely important issue of salvation by grace through faith alone. Read this historical record aloud with passion and you can just feel the depth of this truth coming from the very heart of Paul, a revelation that came directly from God. Read the gospels and feel the power of the confrontations Jesus had with the Pharisees, the warmth and love he had for the sick, mourning, and those of a contrite spirit. These are powerful true stories that have no equal in the literary world. Now compare this with the Book of Mormon. This book reads like something some dry intellectual would write. It’s reads like something written by someone in an air conditioned office drinking a coca-cola. It reads like something someone never experienced.

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon’s reliance on concepts found in the Bible and pre-existing biblical doctrine, and its attempt to mimic Elizabethton English, original language cadences, and the heartfelt passion of prophets that lived their revelations exposes it as a “pastiche.” Pronounced “pass-teesh,” this word is used to describe “a dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists.” In other words, the Book of Mormon is not a genuine new revelation, but rather a blatant imitation of the real thing. When reading the Book of Mormon it becomes readily apparent that it is a pastiche of the Bible. The internal evidence indicates that this book was written by an individual who received no new revelations from God, but rather compiled a book that presents a partial and misleading collage of biblical concepts and a mosaic of scriptural words and phrases mixed with false information. I believe a careful survey of the Book of Mormon reveals it is not “another testament of Jesus Christ”, but rather a “false testament of Jesus Christ.”

Will Hoyt

Daily Proverb

Proverbs 26:5

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.