Is the Book of Mormon True?

 

The End

I recently finished reading The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. This isn’t the first time I’ve read the book, nor will it be my last. But this year-long study is special in a few ways. 

For much of the year, I read from a new study edition of The Book of Mormon edited by Grant Hardy. Hardy presents helpful essays and insights throughout the work including introductions to each book, a robust appendix, and lots of footnotes. What was most helpful though was the formatting. It’s amazing what de-emphasizing verse breaks and treating poetry like poetry can do for readability, as well as section headings that break things down into easy to follow structural beats. I learned a lot. 

Since September, my study has revolved around teaching early morning seminary. Studying to prepare a lesson is great for keeping an active mind through the process and making sure my thoughts are coherent and helpful enough for my audience. Seminary ensured that my study was meaningful every time. It’s also limiting though. There are intellectual paths I just didn’t have the time to follow to conclusion, and I have a lot of questions I forced myself not to answer—for now—because I was reading for others more than myself. 

For me though, the biggest difference this time through The Book of Mormon is that this is my first time reading it all the way through from a new perspective. A few years ago, the bottom fell out of my testimony in the gospel and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I felt lost, exiled, adrift. But around that same time, I gained new frameworks for understanding scripture through the lens of biblical scholarship. My combined faith crisis and faith-and-text  fascination means this year I read

• Without the assumption I knew beforehand what it was saying

• Without the assumption that church leaders, manuals, public opinion, or scholars have the correct interpretation

• Not that these are not valuable, but they are just possible sources of interpretation, not sources to be presumed correct

• Without the assumption that the truth claims about the origin of the book are true

• With the determination to understand what the scriptures are saying first, then moving on to what they mean for me

(At least, I tried)

Of course, I’ve also been approaching the Book of Mormon as a historical artifact at the center of the religious tradition I belong to and the way I view the world, which begs the question: Is it true? 

(Almost) enough beating around the bush! In this post, I will attempt to answer this important question. 

What do you mean by that? 

In general, I’m not a fan of Jordan Peterson (we can get into that another time). But I’ve run into some social media posts making fun of his semantic word salads about the Bible, and the back and forth has made me realize something. I don’t have the energy to find Peterson’s actual quote, but he’s been known to say something like “To answer the question, ‘is the Bible true,’ first you have to tell me what you mean by that. Like what is true? What is The Bible? What is is? You can’t even begin to consider whether the Bible is true until you establish that!” He then goes on to provide various alternative definitions of what it means to be True, never fully committing to or denying any one of them. 

Many people find this hilariously dumb. Of course you know what we mean when we ask, “Is the Bible true,” Jordan! Stop messing with us and give us some answers! And I’ve been tempted to respond similarly. But then I realized some of the thinkers I admire approach similar questions similarly. 

For example, in his excellent collection of essays, The Anthropocene Reviewed, Author John Green has this to say: 

“People ask me all the time if I believe in God. I tell them that I’m Episcopalian, or that I go to church, but they don’t care about that. They only want to know if I believe in God, and I can’t answer them, because I don’t know how to deal with the question’s in. Do I believe in God? I believe around God. But I can only believe in what I am in—sunlight and shadow, oxygen and carbon dioxide, solar systems and galaxies.”

You can use the same words and mean different things. And it is important to consider the various levels of meaning carefully, because the answer to the question “is The Book of Mormon true?” is really getting at “how should I approach the Book of Mormon and what value does it offer me?” So here are some more specific questions I endeavor to answer: 

• Is The Book of Mormon a factually accurate history of human beings who lived on the American Continent?

• Was The Book of Mormon revealed in latter-days the way Joseph Smith said it was?

• Does The Book of Mormon contain true theological doctrines that accurately describe the nature of God?

• Does The Book of Mormon provide true insights into the human condition? 

• Does The Book of Mormon contain good advice (a.k.a. Does it provide true precepts to abide by?) 

• Does The Book of Mormon contain true prophecies about modern times?

Is The Book of Mormon Historically Factual? 

This is what most people are getting at when they ask if The Book of Mormon is true. And I have bad news for you: I don’t know. 

There are aspects of the book I have a hard time believing are historically accurate. One example comes from one of my favorite parts: the story of the Jaredites in the Book of Ether. According to The Book of Mormon, the Brother of Jared prayed that his language would not be confounded when God  responded to the tower of Babel. But the Tower of Babel story in Genesis is structured more like an etiological myth–not a historical account. It was probably written centuries after the events would have taken place if they were historical, so the odds of the details matching so closely with the Book of Mormon account–even if they are both based on a nugget of truth at their core–are slim. 

Another example of a historical oddity I have trouble with is the brass plates Nephi takes from Laban. The idea that the pentateuch would have been essentially canonized along with writings from Isaiah and Jeremiah by the reign of Zedekiah is pretty wild, considering the most likely editorial histories of those writings. It gets especially sticky because the brass plates contain writings of 2nd and 3rd  Isaiah which were almost certainly written much later than the first parts of Isaiah, and Nephites have interpretations of Isaiah writings that are very unlikely for people of their time. 

But I don’t think these likely historical realities are slam-dunk cases against the historical accuracy of The Book of Mormon. There are possible ways to wiggle out of historical concerns. Those ways flip scholarly frameworks for understanding the history of the ancient world and the intricacies of the Biblical texts on their head, but that can easily be counted as a feature, not a bug. 

I guess I’m just not convinced. And by leaving it an open question, I get to spend more time focusing on other questions. I think there are things you’ll miss about the text if you assume that Joseph Smith was just reporting precise data from the plates. And I think there are insights you can gain by asking questions that are impossible to ask if you think The Book of Mormon all fact. Questions like, 

• Why would Joseph Smith have written it this way? 

• What symbolic meaning does this reframing of Isaiah accomplish? 

• How does the Jaredite story argue against the Torah writers’ depictions of God? 

These questions are fascinating to explore, but kind of stupid if you believe wholeheartedly that The Book of Mormon is a history textbook. 

So I remain unsure! 

Was The Book of Mormon Revealed the Way Joseph Smith Said it Was? 

Joseph Smith claimed that an angel led him to the location of golden plates and that he translated those plates by the power of God, with the aid of seer stones and peep stones used in various ways. At the conclusion of translation, the plates were returned to the Angel Moroni, never to be seen again. 

Is all of that true? I don’t know!

(I promise, this is the last question I’ll answer in such an unsatisfying way)

It’s a question closely tied to the first question. If Joseph Smith translated golden plates to produce the Book of Mormon, it's more likely that those plates contained historical truth. And if he found and translated those plates by the power of God, then they certainly were factually accurate, right? 

The reverse is true too. If the text doesn’t hold up to historical criticism, then it weakens the case that it came from an ancient source and was translated by divine aid. 

There are some good reasons to believe Joseph. There were 11 formal witnesses of the plates. And none of whom rescinded their testimony. I’m especially impressed with Oliver Cowdery, who accused the prophet of an affair with Fanny Alger and witnessed firsthand the effects of Smith’s bad financial management, and even left the church, but came back, reaffirming his testimony. The plates were produced through dictation in a short amount of time with very little editing and apparently without sources. Coming up with a plausible alternative origin for the text of the Book of Mormon can prove difficult. 

Still, it’s possible that Joseph, who, according to his mother, regaled his family with stories about Nephites and Lamanites for years before he obtained the plates, spent those years preparing to dictate the story, possibly using similar techniques to methodist ministers at the time for memorizing long sermons. It’s possible the origin of the book was a mix of delusion and inspiration. It’s possible Joseph constructed some kind of plates and was ultimately convinced even by his own, originally fabricated, story. Maybe he pulled from various or a single creative work as an initial source. I haven’t yet found an alternative theory I find fully convincing, but to be fair, I haven’t tried very hard. I meant to read more about the subject this year, but I fell into a reading slump and honestly was too engrossed in the text itself to worry too much about its origin. 

And this question comes mostly down to the text itself for me in the end. The Book of Mormon seems most concerned with the theological and social questions of the 19th century it was produced in. Can the primitive church be restored? What’s the truth about race? Is polygamy okay? Why are there so many churches? Have miracles ceased? How does the atonement work? All of these questions were common to Joseph Smith’s era. It seems unlikely that they also were the chief concerns of ancient proto-christian people living in the americas. 

Of course, that concern can easily be reframed in faithful terms. Moroni testified that he saw the future readers of the record he was about to bury in the earth. Perhaps the record was curated with the portion of Nephite and Jaredite history that would most help modern readers. 

What is clear to me, is that Joseph Smith was a skilled revelator. I’ll be thinking more about whether his revelations came from intellectual genius or divine authority. 

Is the Book of Mormon Right about God?

The Book of Mormon makes several, remarkably consistent, theological claims. Unlike the Bible, in which various authors often disagree with each other on points of theology, the Nephite authors are generally in agreement–even if they come to the same truths in different ways. Are the doctrines of the Book of Mormon true? 

The Book of Mormon teaches the “fortunate fall” doctrine, in which the exile of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden was a positive (even necessary) step in the progress of humanity. 

It teaches that, as a consequence of the fall, humankind is separated from God both physically and spiritually. 

By the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ, the book teaches, all humanity will be raised from physical death into the presence of God to be judged of their works, whether they are good or evil. 

It teaches that those who repent and are baptised will be saved. 

These core doctrines resonate with me. I believe they’re true, though I’m open to other possibilities. I’m not sure I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but I can get behind a fortunate fall of humanity, where we must pass through suffering to progress, and also that we need redemption from that suffering. I see in the doctrine of Christ a direct connection–or reconnection–between God and humanity. An at-one-ment, if you will. 

I find it really hard believing in a God that wouldn’t require any personal effort for salvation. For me, salvation isn’t just a change in destinations, it’s a change of heart, and I think the Book of Mormon testifies well to that idea. 

There are other theological claims and implications in the Book of Mormon that I am less committed to, or even reject. For example, the theology of American destiny taught in the book I find a little troubling, and I wholeheartedly reject the idea of a God who would change the color of someone’s skin in order to isolate them from other, fairer-skinned people. 

Is the Book of Mormon Right about Humans?

One of the first in-text revelations of the Book of Mormon is a grand vision of mortality framed as a journey across a great field, ultimately, to a tree of life. There’s lots to extrapolate about human nature from the dream, shared by both Nephi and his father. Humans lack vision. They are distracted, clingy, prideful, ashamed. Even when they taste the most desirable fruit in the shade of the most beautiful tree, they sometimes still fall away in embarrassment. Are these and other observations about humanity found in the Book of Mormon true? 

I haven’t counted verses to prove it, but it seems to me that the book relies on narrative more than sermon to articulate its themes, and human stories often reveal more about the humans than whatever they struggle against. Two great journeys to the promised land reveal the power–and limits–of the human capacity for covenant trust. The missionary legacies of Alma, Ammon, and the other sons of Mosiah uncover the experience of conversion, and the effects of unwavering loyalty. Wars take up a lot of the book–an annoying amount for my interests–but there’s nothing like a war to show what people are really like. 

One of the most consistent narrative elements that comment on human nature is what many modern readers have deemed “the pride cycle” in which the nephite civilization undergoes periods of prosperity, followed by pride, followed by destruction, followed by humility, followed by prosperity. This cycle has its roots in the Hebrew Bible. It’s shocking how much of the Hebrew Bible is based around themes of exile and return–and grappling with the reality of the conquest of God’s chosen people. How could such conquest happen? Surely someone sinned and God reneged on the promise until the people repent and return to him. The Book of Mormon begins in the midst of a transition to exile–the babylonian captivity that ends the reign of Zedekiah–and rolls the rock down the mountain, so to speak as a similar cycle repeats itself again and again. 

No earthly or heavenly force seems to be capable of overcoming this overwhelming cycle. Not even the coming of Jesus, which inaugurates perhaps the longest period of both humility and prosperity, fully fortifies Nephite civilization against the sin of pride. 

Is it true? Is pride the defining characteristic of human civilization? It’s a big question. 

What is clear to me is that the Book of Mormon’s commentary on humanity is true enough to take seriously. It poses important questions about who we are and what makes us tick, and it proposes some grand answers which cannot be easily dismissed. 

Does the Book of Mormon Carry Sound Advice? 

The introduction to the Book of Mormon quotes its translator declaring it the most true of any other book. “and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts,” Joseph claims, “than by any other book.” I think this last bit of Smith’s quote is too often overlooked. His statement of the Book of Mormon’s “truth” isn’t limited to one aspect of truth, but he does emphasize the truthfulness of its “precepts” or in other words “rules of behavior” most explicitly. 

What are the precepts of the Book of Mormon, and are they sound? 

Nephi demonstrates a precept of courageous obedience, trusting that the “Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way that they may accomplish the thing which he hath commanded them.” Lehi teaches his children to be steadfast. Jacob preaches against polygamy. Enos is an example of earnest prayer. The record keepers in Omni do their part, even in weakness. Benjamin exhorts service. 

I credit Alma, the reformed priest of wicked King Noah, for introducing a novel framework for baptism (though Benjamin introduces a similar framework in Zarahemla around the same time without baptism). Baptism, Alma teaches, is a covenant to serve God and keep his commandments. In return, God promises his spirit and, ultimately, eternal life. Later Book of Mormon writers don’t seem to follow this idea of covenant baptism, though most latter-day saint readers generally assume they are speaking of it the same way. But the idea—of an ordinance-bound covenant to live a faithful life, with the promise of supernatural aid to keep that covenant to the end—makes a big splash on the theological legacy of the Book of Mormon. It provides a practical means of being “born again,” helped in modern times by the church’s emphasis of a full “covenant path” complete with endowed power, temple sealing, and a reframing of the Lord’s supper as a covenant renewal ritual to help worshippers endure to the end. 

In a chapter too many read as just a rebuke of child baptizers, the prophet-historian Mormon provides what I see as the best description of the “gospel of Jesus Christ,” with baptism at its core, as an ongoing precept-process that can be applied: 

And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God (Moroni 8:25-26). 

One of the main reasons I stay in the church, despite my doubts, is a nugget of faith that the gospel process leads to transformed natures in the way Mormon describes. It is the “way prepared” that Nephi speaks of, making it possible for us to obey the commandment that our very natures be forever changed. 

In some ways, I know my perspective is clouded by bias. It’s possible to look at any long text, read it religiously, and see wisdom that applies to one’s life. But I see the precepts of the Book of Mormon as true and worth continuing to try implementing. 

Were Book of Mormon Prophets Right about “Our Day”? 

It’s often taught that the Book of Mormon was written for our day. What does that mean though? Does it mean, as some have claimed, that the abridgement of Nephite history has a 1:1 correlation with the unfolding events of the rise and fall of the United States of America, and that a reader can pinpoint where we are at any given moment on the timeline of events? 

I think it’s more likely that record keepers knew that the book would be read by future generations, and that they received prophetic glimpses into those futures and tried to record what would be of use to those generations in the future.

The strongest language implying so is by Moroni, writing in Mormon 8. 

“Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.”

 

Sidenote: I think some people confuse the author of this quote. While it’s in the book of Mormon, it’s Moroni who is speaking. 

But who is Moroni talking about? Did he have a vision of the individual lives of each reader from the year the Book of Mormon was published until the second coming of Jesus? Did he get an overview of modern history? Is he referring more to early readers of the Book of Mormon in the 19th century or readers in the 20th or 21st centuries? I don’t think we can know, but we can look at his prophecies about the latter days and evaluate if we think they’re true or not. Here are just a few that stand out to me: 

“Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth;” (Mormon 8:31)

Read the first chapter of Saints Volume 1  where the Tambora volcano eruption is described and credited for setting the stage in many ways for the restoration. The 19th century was also a time of industrial revolution, where pollution became a central characteristic of modernity. Pollution has since caused irreversible damage to the earth. I’d say this prophecy is true. 

“For behold, ye do love money . . . And the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.” (Mormon 8:37)

This one stings a little bit. In the 19th century, churches became more plain, less ornate. But one church started building beautiful, expensive temples in the desert and then across the globe. When I think of churches that love money and the adorning of churches more than the poor and needy, I think of large, evangelical megachurches, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I try to be understanding. Think: if the fate of billions of souls in spirit prison rely on temple ordinances for salvation, we need a lot of temples! If temple attendance is central to the covenant path for ALL members, we need a lot of temples! If end-time prophecies will soon be fulfilled, it would be useful to have a stockpile of money and resources. But as more and more temples get announced, as the church finds itself in morally gray financial waters, as the percentage of church expenditures spent on human need declines–even though it does do an immense good with that small percentage, it makes me a little worried when I read this direct callout from Moroni in the Book of Mormon, which seems to be addressing the modern church the book initiated its primary audience. 

“there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day.” (Mormon 8:31)

More than half of Americans have bought into misinformation about voter fraud in the 2020 election. In 2021, nearly 8 in 10 Americans believed or were unsure about at least one common falsehood about COVID-19 or the vaccine. Deception is everywhere. And the whoredoms and abominations of wicked men are swept under the rug. We literally elected a serial sexual predator, known for his dishonesty, as president of the United States. TWICE! Obviously, this prophecy is true. 

Are these prophecies lucky guesses? Vague enough that they can be used to confirm basically any modern bias (I could sense some of you across cyberspace, judging me for confirming my own biases with that last paragraph)? Or is there something to it. 

There are, of course, more concrete predictions (A seer named Joseph will be called. He will deliver a manuscript to learned men who would validate and then reject it. The Book of Mormon would be carried to the “lamanites”). 

And perhaps the most consistent prophecy has to do with the scattering and gathering of Israel, and the fulfillment of God’s covenant to his people. I think this one is actually two prophecies–the outcome contingent on whether or not the gentiles repent. I have thoughts to gather about this topic, so stay tuned. 

Anyway, I do think that the Book of Mormon is prophetic for the Latter-days. 

A Conclusion

Of course, this investigation would be incomplete without confronting the method the Book of Mormon’s concluding author prescribed to learn the truth of the work he would soon bury in the earth. 

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

Lacking additional historical evidence, some of the questions I’ve posed are pretty fruitless unless there is supernatural aid available that can reveal truth in the way Moroni described. Sincerity, real intent, and faith are easier said than done, much less parsing out the difference between spiritual influence and emotion. The thing about fights between secular and spiritual thinking is that only one side even has a serious claim to the possibility of knowledge. It is not the goal of social science to prove things, only to establish probabilities. I’d actually say that the same is true for spirituality. Even if you feel very strongly that you “know” something based on spiritual influence, I think you’re only really dealing in probability–probability that your feelings mean what you think they mean. 

All that said, I think that spirituality and reason perhaps have the best chance of revealing truth. 

So what am I going to do? Well, I have to pray, right? I’m still formulating my exact plan, but I hope to develop my sincerity, intent, and faith to a point where I can ask God. I may or may not let you know how that goes.