Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

Institute for Religious Research ^ | 1999 | Luke P. Wilson

[Quester]

Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

Copyright © 1999 Institute for Religious Research. All rights reserved.

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:

"laver" (13 times in Bible)

"incense" (121 times in Bible)

"ark of the covenant" (48 times in Bible)

"sons of Aaron" (97 times in Bible)

"mercy seat" (23 in Bible)

"day of atonement" (21 times in Bible)

"feast of tabernacles" (17 times in Bible)

"passover" (59 times in Bible)

"house of the LORD" (627 in Bible)

"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.

— Luke P. Wilson

[Old Mountain man]

Well, by gosh, I'm gonna just call you a person.

[Old Mountain man]

Actually, I take the Lord very seriously but you are an interesting example of intolerant humor.

[colorcountry]

Thanks Brother Mountainman! ;-)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for pinging me to your reply! Indeed, we are compelled to speak up, especially concerning Jesus Christ.

So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. - Eze 33:7-9

The difficult part is to be sure we are speaking what He is saying and not what we are thinking He is saying or what someone else is telling us He is saying.

That is why I have the 3 prong test at post 258 before taking anything to heart and thereafter repeating it to anyone else.

My testimony about the Mormon doctrine as well as many other such doctrines is that they did not pass that 3 prong test for me, hence I am not Mormon, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. nor do I endorse any such doctrine of men. That is my warning as a watchman.

[xzins]

sewing dissent

Do you use a hand stitch or a machine stitch? (Just giving you a hard time. :>)

[restornu]

Do you use a hand stitch or a machine stitch?

Like my tagline onedoug??

[GOPPachyderm]

I don't know how it is possible to say that going to church has nothing to do with being a Christian. Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments.

If you say you believe, assembling together with other believers is remembering the Sabbath.

[Californiajones]

True. But God judges our heart, not our church attendance, that was my real point.

For example, church attendance under a gay minister in an Epsicopalian church would be very problematic for the Lord, I would think. Home churches where the Word goes forth after praise and worship would also count.

Jack Hayford of the Foursquare Church said some years back that he believed that God was leading the church (meaning the whole body of Christ over the whole world) out of institutional church thinking -- because going to church on Sunday is becoming less effective in our speedy, Internet age.

Home groups with stronger interpersonal ties between pastors and members seems to be the way the Spirit is counteracting the problem of "mega churches" and idolatry of Christian leaders and speakers. That's my only thought about it -- but you are right by saying we should go to church. The definition of such is in transition, I believe, for our present culture.

[Californiajones]

Yeah, thanks for the three pronged test. I fail it a lot. But Love covers a multitude of sin, thank you Lord.

The passage in Ezekiel 33 7-9 was soul shaking to me when I first read it. And still is. If we know the truth and do not love someone enough to call them to understanding if given the chance, their sin is on us. Help me Lord to be of self control, of Love and walking humbly in Your precepts.

Batter my heart, O three-personed God!

And thanks A Girl.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

because the Mormons believe the American Indians are one of the lost tribes of Israel, i.e. Mormons believe that Indians are Jewish.

Might wanna practice what you believe first before claiming to be an expert on other religions. Hurling insults at people you've never posted to in your life isn't exactly a "christian" trait. Hypocrite.

[Californiajones]

Wanna explain "hurling insults"?

And cut the personal attacks. Not allowed on FR.

[Californiajones]

And, while you are at it, wanna explain where I "claimed to be an expert on other religions"?

And, again, watch the personal insults.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

And, again, watch the personal insults.

Ya mean the "hypocrite" remark? Just following Jesus' example. Isn't that what he called Pharisees? (Although I happen to respect the Pharisees) You don't know me and yet in your first post ever to me you said my religion was "lukewarm". You telling me to watch the personal insults is laughable hypocrite.

[Californiajones]

Get your syntax up to speed, friend.

Calling conservative Judaism lukewarm is not a personal attack.

Paul, a Messianic Jew, or any of his Pharisaical forebears would not hesitate to call modern conservative Judaism"lukewarm" and would probably have you stoned for apostasy. As Paul the former Pharisee wrote -- either you keep the Law one hundred percent or you don't.

And of course, his point was -- you can't.

No one can.

Thus the need for a Messiah.

The Lamb of God, to take away the sins of the world by His innocent shed blood -- once and for all.

NOT waiting each year for the propitiation of sins for the blood letting ceremony at Jerusalem.

God's New Covenant is so practical for those of us who live out-country.

And one more time. Watch the personal attacks. This California gal is going for discernment of spirits and doctrine -- not pretending to know you or your personal problems or issues. So don't pretend you know mine.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Calling conservative Judaism lukewarm is not a personal attack.

It was one of the most bigoted attacks I've seen on theses threads in quite some time. I repeat, you don't know me. You don't know any of the people that attend my synagogue. I understand you don't share the same beliefs but to say we're lukewarm is just plain ignorant.

Paul, a Messianic Jew, or any of his Pharisaical forebears would not hesitate to call modern conservative Judaism"lukewarm" and would probably have you stoned for apostasy. As Paul the former Pharisee wrote -- either you keep the Law one hundred percent or you don't.

Just like I will not hesitiate to label you a hypocrite and a bigot. Have a nice life making yourself look foolish on these threads. May you grow up quickly.

[restornu]

I am glad you found the words because I knew what was posted was very offensive but could not mentally wrap my brain around how someone could be so clueless of what they done!

[Californiajones]

And may the Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob bless you with His Spirit mightily.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements, your testimony and prayer! Amen!

[P-Marlowe]

FWIW, II's purpose in life seems to be finding things that offend him. I'd ignore him if I were you.

[Californiajones]

You know P Marlowe, did anyone ever tell you that you really hear from the Lord?

You do. Thanks again.