Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

There are many serious objections to the claim of Joseph Smith and the LDS church that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired latter-day scripture supplemental to the Bible. However, none are more significant than the numerous contradictions between Book of Mormon teaching and the Bible. This list is illustrative only, not exhaustive.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.*)

2. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command ("of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it") in order to keep the former ("be fruitful and multiply"), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.

3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).

4. The Book of Mormon teaches that, "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23; see also Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).

5. According to the Book of Mormon, about 600 years before Christ, a Nephite prophet predicted that "many plain and precious parts" (1 Nephi 13:26-28) would be removed from the Bible. In contrast, from the Bible it is clear that during His earthly ministry, Jesus himself constantly quoted from the Old Testament Scriptures, and showed full confidence in their completeness and accurate transmission as they had survived down to His time. Jesus declared that "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31; see also Matthew 5:18), and promised His disciples who were to pen the New Testament that the Holy Ghost "shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" (John 14:26); Jesus further promised the apostles that they would "bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain" (John 15:16). These promises clearly imply that the fruit of the apostles — the New Testament Scriptures and the Christian church — would endure.

6. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christ’s crucifixion "darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days." In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

An earlier prophecy in 1 Nephi 19:10 implies the three days of darkness will be more than regional in scope for it says this sign will be "unto those who inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel." The darkness then would extend over the ocean to the islands and reach as far as Israel in the Middle East.

Book of Mormon references to the fulfillment of this prophecy, however, use wording that could be understood to mean the three days of darkness was only in the Americas, stating that the three days of darkness would be "over the face of the land." (3 Nephi 8:3ff; 10:9). This appears to be the position of the late Mormon General Authority B.H. Roberts in his book Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 292). If this is the case, then this would resolve the apparent contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon regarding what happened at the time of Christ's death, for we would have 3 hours of darkness in Israel and 3 days of darkness on the American continents. However, this would make the earlier prophecies of 1 Nephi and Helaman internally contradictory with later BOM references, since their phrasing of "the isles of the sea ... those who are of the house of Israel" and "the whole face of the whole earth" is difficult to understand as merely a localized time of darkness.

7. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

8. According to the Book of Mormon, there were many high priests serving at the same time (Mosiah 11:11; Alma 13:9-10; 46:6,38; Helaman 3:25) in the New World, among those it describes as Jewish immigrants from ancient Israel who "kept the law of Moses" (e.g., 2 Nephi 25:10; Jacob 4:5; Jarom 1:5). In contrast, it is clear from the Bible that only one individual at a time occupied the office of high priest under the Old Testament dispensation (see, for example Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3; Hebrews 8:6-7). (The mention in Luke 3:2 of "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" is not a real exception -- in Christ’s time Israel was under the domination of the Romans, who intervened to change the high priest at will. That is, this office became a kind of "political football," rather than following the appointment process dictated in the Law of Moses. See John 18:13, which describes Annas as "father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year.")

9. The people described in the Book of Mormon operated multiple temples (Alma 16:13; 23:2; 26:29). This violates the dictates of the Old Testament Scriptures on two counts: First, God commanded Israel to build only one temple to reflect that fact that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 12:5,13-14; 16:5-6). Second, the one legitimate temple was to be built in Jerusalem (Zion), the location designated by God (The Old Testament is filled with explicit references to God choosing Jerusalem [Zion] as the place where "His name would dwell" in the temple: for example, 1 Kings 8:44,48; 11:13,32,36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:27; 1 Chronicles 28:4; 2 Chronicles 6:6; 7:12,16; Psalm 78:68-69; Isaiah 18:7.

10. The most common biblical terms used to describe the Old Testament priesthood, temple and appointed feasts, are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Here are 10 examples of such biblical terms with their frequencies, that never appear once in the Book of Mormon:

"Aaron" – this name appears 48 times in the Book of Mormon, but never in reference to the biblical Aaron or the Aaronic priesthood

Conclusion: The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin.

Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.

No one is "bashing" Mormons here. This is just a rational discussion. So far there has been no name calling.

Let's keep it that way.

There are people on this site that do not believe in the Christ of the Mormons. It is their right to argue the point, as it is your right to defend it.

How old was Joseph smith in 1820. 14 years old? Not many people would give a whole lot of precedent, even today for what an inexperienced 14 year old has to say. Smith wrote about the sectarian wrangling many years after 1820, and his memory could very well have been corrupted through the lens of time. From the time he announced the Book of Mormon to the world, his life did contain a lot of sectarian wrangling.

Perhaps in our ferver and our wrangling over religion here on FR, we will all have a vision or epiphany of religious insight like unto Joseph Smith. Had he not "wrangled" he would not have searched for answers....it's part of the process.

I don't know how you define "bashing," but there is no shortage of denigrating language and distortion or outright misrepresentation. And people using all the "reason and sophistry" at their command -- which sometimes isn't much.

Why don't these people just spend their time explaining the merits and rationale of their own belief system, instead of running down the beliefs of others?

Mormonism fails so miserably that it is a joke that anyone takes it seriously, and a despicable one at that.

No one is "bashing" Mormons here. This is just a rational discussion. So far there has been no name calling.

You have an interesting definition of bashing.

I'm sorry Reaganesque, I missed that post. Which one was it, and who posted it?

What if I were to tell you that I am a member of the Church of the Firstborn, which traces it's priesthood down through the LDS. My Church contends that it alone holds the entire gospel. When Mormonism failed to promote the divinely inspired practice of polygamy as proscribed by the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the keys to celestial marriage were removed from the LDS.

My prophet was given them...and still retains them. Hence we are the fullness of the gospel in this dispensation. Not you.

Of course, I'm NOT a member of that off-shoot, fundamentalist Mormon based religion. But i suppose you would argue my points if I was. This IS the belief of the Church of the First Born. How do you answer it....or do you just say (as you suggest we do) that it is okay that they die in the misbegotten belief.

Im sorry, but that is just PC crap. You're saying that by me saying their belief is misbegotten, that I have somehow bashed you or called you a name?

Don't Mormons believe, by there very scripture, that no other religion on earth is correct. Isn't that part of the vision Joseph Smith recieved...So in essence are you not saying that you believe Catholics, Protestants, or followers of Islam are "misbegotten," or would you prefer a more politically polite term like "mistaken."

You are very sensitive. Oops, was I calling you a name?

You didn't answer me. How do you speak to the modern day polygamists that believe they are living the fullness of the gospel in this dispensation?

Would you proselyte to them? Would you send the missionaries? Or would you ignore them.

Do Mormons proselyte to Catholics or Protestants by telling them that they do not have the entire gospel....in essense that their religion is incorrect. Of course they do! Do we here at FreeRepublic call the missionaries "basher" for this? (yes, some do.) This is HOW discussion takes place.

Do we call Democrats names and say they are misbegotten? - YES.

Do we say Communism is an agent of the Devil?...ON OCCASION.

Do we call Bill Clinton an adulterer? OFTEN (because in our opinion it is true.)

When someone says Mormon's are a joke, it is their opinion. This is not bashing or name calling. It IS discussion.

And people using all the "reason and sophistry" at their command -- which sometimes isn't much.

I especially like the bit about 'the Bible contradicts the Book of Mormon and therefore the Book of Mormon is false'. The sophisticated part (at least, it passeth my poor understanding) is where they don't denigrate the Book of Mormon, they just imply it was authored by Satan.

We believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be the restoration of the church that Christ himself founded when He was here on Earth. We believe it has the same organization and the same doctrines as His church did. We believe that when he left this Earth, there was an apostasy from the truth. We teach what we believe to be His doctrine and allow those whom we teach to pray about it and see if what we say is true or not.(see James 1:5) That you interpret that as an attack on your beliefs is your choice, unfortunately.

Alas, you are misinformed. For instance, you wrote

The angel Moroni failed the biblical miserably because it denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. In the book of Mormon, Jesus is said to only have appeared "in the spirit" to the disciples. Yet the New Testament said that Jesus held up His hands to his disciples and that Thomas put his finger into the nail hole in Jesus's wrists to prove that Jesus had been nailed on the cross and ressurected in the flesh. So the book of Mormon fails the schoolyard test in 1 John.

As you note, the Bible teaches unequivocally that Jesus appeared in the flesh to his disciples in the Old World. Likewise, the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus appeared in the flesh to his disciples in the New World:

13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:
14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

A question: Have you actually read the Book of Mormon?

I have not only implied, but stated openly that I believe the Book of Mormon is a work of Satan.

This is bashing, denigrating, disrepectable....and the like. But it is my fervent belief.

You and I have disagreed over Mormonism in the past. That did not bother me then; it does not bother me now. Nor am I offended when someone says that the Book of Mormon is the work of Satan, that the "Mormons" aren't Christian, etc., etc.

One thing does bother me, however. I dislike it when someone misrepresents what Latter-day Saints believe -- especially when the person should know better. The article by Wilson that started this thread is a perfect example of what I mean.

You seem to be bothered by our claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only "true" church. Do you understand precisely what we mean when we say that?

Yes.

You believe that the fullness of the gospel (as taught by Jesus Christ) was restored to Joseph Smith. This restoration happened after a young man, being confused about the abundance of Christian teaching, went to a grove to pray. An Angel of the Lord visit him and told him that none of the Churches were correct. He was told that a great apostasy had occurred on earth, and that the gospel had been removed after the original apostles of Christ had died.

He was shown the golden plates in a vision. Later he went and dug them from the ground. After meeting Martin Harris who offered financial support, Joseph Smith transcribe the writing of the plates into book form and had them published. This began a new religion. My ancestors joined the church in Kirkland Ohio, Quincy Illinois, Scotland, England and South Africa. The joined together here, in Utah, in Zion to live the wondrous and everlasting fullness of the gospel.

Yes, my great-great grandfather (John D. Lee) murdered 150 immigrants from Arkansas at Mountain Meadows. He was executed for that crime. Even though his superiors in the Church had ordered it. There are many many more stories I have to tell. I'll tell you them when there is more time.

We follow the example of Jesus when preaching the Gospel. At no point in time did He ever spread his word by focusing on why everyone else was wrong. He said on many occasions, "it is said...but I say...". Of the Law of Moses He said:

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
-Matthew 5:17-18

Now the Pharisees and the Sadducees chose to see this as an attack but was it? No. He was teaching His word. In the same spirit, we do not attack anyone. It is only those who do not like or understand our message that perceive an attack.

Uh, so you mean that the Book of Mormon says that people thrust their hands into Jesus' sides and where the nails had been in His wrists

IN SOUTH AMERICA????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh. Jesus was not in South America. If He was going to come to this hemisphere, the Old Testament would have had some of the thousands of messiah prophecies allude to it. None do.

No. Please tell me where the Book Of Mormon retells the part about where the disciples -- i.e. the disciples of the New Testament -- met up with Jesus after his resurrection.

NOT the Joe Smith LSD trip about Jesus in South America.

C'mon. Get real. I read it once when I was 18 years old in the Book of Mormon and my memory can't be that bad. So let's go -- what does it say?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.