This is my last post for now on the Book of Mormon. I will finish with questions from 3 Nephi, Mormon, Ether and Moroni. This series hasn’t included all my questions, but are those that immediately came to mind when I last read through the Book of Mormon. I have started a collection of other questions, but those are for another time. So now lets look at my questions. Some of the last ones are statements about being plagiarisms from the KJV.
1. 3 Nephi 9:18 uses the Greek words "alpha" and "omega". Wouldn’t the “reformed Egyptian” alphabet have different letters at the beginning and the end? Why didn’t Smith translate to the English alphabet?
2. 3 Nephi 11:17 uses the Hebrew "Hosanna" ("save us"). Again, why translate into Hebrew instead of English?
3. 3 Nephi 11:33-34 is almost a direct quotation from Mark 16:16. Modern Greek scholars have determined that Mark 16:16 of the King James version was a translational error and wasn't in the original manuscript. So how did it end up in the Book of Mormon?
4. 3 Nephi 12:3-48 is KJV Matthew 5, with problems as previously noted when copying from KJV. Verse 22 leaves in the word "Raca", which is Aramaic for "empty-head". Why is Aramaic in an English translation of “reformed Egyptian?”
5. 3 Nephi 13 is Matthew 6 KJV with the normal problems, including the use of the Greek word hypocrite (meaning "actor"). In verse 23 Smith uses the Jewish evil eye idea, which Nephites would not know! And why are they using the cubit for measure (vs27)?
6. 3 Nephi 14 is KJV Matthew 7, with the usual problems. Along with chapters 12 and 13, these were supposedly words spoken by Jesus during his visit to America in A.D. 34, whereas the words in Matthew are part of the Sermon on the Mount. Would Jesus have repeated himself word for word like that, speaking in a different language to a different audience at a different time and place? And if he did, would a translation from Reformed Egyptian come out to be identical with a translation from Greek manuscripts, which in turn were a translation of the Aramaic words Jesus used with his Jewish audience?
7. 3 Nephi 15:17 and 21 are both KJV John 10:16! How?
8. 3 Nephi 16:18-20 is Isaiah 52:8-10, but is not identical with Mosiah 15:29-31. Why?
9. 3 Nephi 18:29 is copied from I Corinthians 11:27. Why was Jesus not so specific with the Jews in Israel?
10. 3 Nephi 19:4 has the Greek name Timothy. How?
11. In the 3rd chapter of Acts, Peter's sermon at Pentecost paraphrases Deuteronomy 18:15-19. While in the process of writing 3 Nephi 20 (which is KJV Acts 3:23-26), Joseph Smith puts Peter's paraphrase in the mouth of Jesus when he was allegedly preaching to the Nephites. Joseph overlooked the fact that at the time that Christ was allegedly preaching His sermon, the sermon itself had not yet been preached by Peter! How can this be?
12. 3 Nephi 20:31-45 are KJV Isaiah 52:1-15 with the verses somewhat out of order. Chapter 21:8 is Isaiah 52:15 KJV.
13. 3 Nephi 22 is KJV Isaiah 54 with the usual problems.
14. 3 Nephi 24 is KJV Malachi 3, while chapter 25 is Malachi 4, with the usual problems.
15. 3 Nephi 27:29 is KJV Matthew 7:7.
16. Mormon 9:22 ends with KJV Mark 16:15, while 9:23-24 is Mark 16:16-18.
17. Ether 2:3 has bees in the New World yet they were not brought over until the Spanish explorers came in the 16th century. How is this accounted for?
18. Ether 2:20. Doesn't God know which end is up?
19. Ether 5:18 is again KJV Mark 16:16-17
20. Ether 6:5,11 tells us that a "furious" wind propelled the "vessels or barges" (which were they?) to the Promised Land. It took the furious wind 344 days to blow the barges to the New World. Even if the furious wind could only push the barges at 10 mph, the distance traveled would have been 82,560 miles - three times around the globe. Is this reasonable?
21. Ether 10:5 again tells us polygamy is not right in God's sight. Again, how does this relate to D&C 132?
22. Ether 15:31 tells of a fight to the death between Coriantumr and Shiz. Shiz gets his head cut off, after he had already fainted from loss of blood, and then raises up on his hands before falling back, while struggling for breath! This defies all medical knowledge. (no, it is not analogous with the reflexes of a chicken’s body with the head chopped off)
23. Moroni 7:45,46 is KJV 1 Corin. 13:4 on.
24. Moroni 10:9-16 is basically KJV I Cor. 12:8-11.
24. The last great battle at Hill Cumorah in A.D. 385 killed about 500,000 people with all manner of weapons of war, yet no archaeological evidence can be found for this battle. Why?
Explain how an inspired translation from Reformed Egyptian directly to the English language of 1830 becomes virtually word-for-word identical with the 1611 English translation from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; how do the words become the same? (Especially explain how the italicized words in the KJV - those not in the original but put there by the translators to help make sense - are included in the Book of Mormon.)
The text shown to Smith on his seer stone in his hat over his face would not move until the scribe copied everything accurately - so why have there been over 4000 changes to the text since 1830?
Last, but not least, the Lamanites are supposed to be descendants of Jewish people — Semites — and the American Indian is descended from the Lamanites. Anthropologists state that the American Indian is Mongoloid — descended from Asian peoples who crossed the Bering Strait. This has been demonstrated conclusively by recent DNA studies.
"The nature of the message in the Book Of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it." Orson Pratt.
10 comments:
From an LDS perspective, the presence of KJV language, including Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic terms such as alpha, omega, hosanna, raca, and hypocrite, is explained by the principle stated in Doctrine and Covenants 1:24—that God communicates “in their weakness, after the manner of their language.” In this view, Joseph Smith was not producing a literal, word‑for‑word rendering of “reformed Egyptian,” but receiving an inspired translation in the religious language he already knew: the English of the King James Bible. Because Joseph’s scriptural vocabulary was shaped by the KJV, the Lord used that familiar idiom to convey ancient ideas in a form Joseph could understand and express. This explains why Jesus’ teachings to the Nephites resemble the Sermon on the Mount: the underlying doctrines are the same, and God chose to reveal them in the English phrasing Joseph recognized. It also explains why passages like the longer ending of Mark appear in the Book of Mormon; even if modern scholars debate their originality, God is free to use any wording that conveys true doctrine, regardless of later textual history. The appearance of Peter’s sermon from Acts in Jesus’ Nephite discourse is likewise understood not as an anachronism but as evidence that divine teachings are consistent across dispensations, and that similar truths can be revealed to different peoples in similar language without implying literary dependence.
Apparent anachronisms such as honeybees in Ether, long ocean voyages, or unusual battle descriptions are approached by LDS scholars with the understanding that our archaeological and scientific knowledge of ancient America is incomplete. The term “bees” may refer to a different species than the European honeybee, and the Jaredite barges may have traveled along ocean currents in ways we do not fully understand. The dramatic account of Shiz’s final moments can be interpreted as a description of involuntary muscular reflexes rather than a literal continuation of consciousness. The condemnation of polygamy in Ether is not seen as contradicting later revelations but as evidence that God commands or restricts plural marriage according to His purposes in different times and cultures, just as He did with monogamy and polygamy in the Old Testament. These issues are therefore not viewed as contradictions but as examples of God’s dealings with different peoples under different circumstances.
Archaeological questions surrounding the Hill Cumorah and the scale of Nephite and Jaredite battles are addressed by noting that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly identify the New York hill as the same Cumorah mentioned in the text; that identification arose later in LDS tradition. Many LDS scholars favor a limited‑geography model in Mesoamerica, where evidence of large ancient populations, warfare, metallurgy, and fortifications is abundant. The absence of Israelite DNA among modern Native Americans is explained by the small size of Lehi’s group, genetic drift, population bottlenecks, and the overwhelming dominance of pre‑existing populations, which would quickly dilute or erase the genetic signature of a tiny migrant family. From this perspective, DNA studies do not disprove the Book of Mormon but reflect the expected outcome when a small Near Eastern group is absorbed into a much larger indigenous population.
The existence of thousands of textual changes since 1830 is not seen as contradicting the translation process, because the changes are overwhelmingly grammatical, stylistic, or clarifying rather than doctrinal. Early scribes made errors, punctuation was added later, and Joseph himself refined the language as his understanding grew. The seer‑stone descriptions given by witnesses do not necessarily imply that every word was fixed and unchangeable, but rather that the translation was guided and inspired, with room for human involvement in the recording and editing process. Thus, the Book of Mormon can be both divinely revealed and subject to normal textual refinement over time.
Ultimately, the LDS defense holds that the Book of Mormon’s resemblance to the KJV reflects God’s choice to reveal ancient truths in a familiar scriptural dialect, not evidence of plagiarism; that archaeological and scientific questions remain open rather than fatal; and that the spiritual message of the book is the primary evidence of its divine origin. In this view, the Book of Mormon stands as a second witness of Christ, and its power lies not in the absence of questions but in the transformative effect it has on those who read it with faith.
Communicating in one’s weakness does not include translating the 19th century text into 17th century English. The problem is that much of the BOM is plagiarized directly from the KJV Bible. There is no way so called reformed Egyptian language would end up exactly like the KJV passages. As well, there would be no to translate into Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words from the Ref. Egyptian, rather a real translation would be in 19th century English.
Smith said he translated from the original and the original would not moved until he had it copied correctly, and then another section would show in his hat to translate. Did he lie when he said it would not move until he translated it correctly? And where does he say he didn’t translate literally? Later LDS make such claim because they are trying to excuse away the language problem.
To make a claim that God gave him a Scriptural language he was familiar with is just another lie to cover the fraud. Again, the average person no longer spoke 17th century English and again, how would it be word-for-word copied out of the KJV? Sorry, but this is all illogical and only a scam to protect what is fraudulent.
God never authorized or commanded plural marriage in the O.T., rather he allowed it. And every incident ended up in trouble. God made marriage as one man and one woman, but Joe Smith claimed God gave him polygamy because he was a serial adulterer.
The battles never took place period, except in Joe’s imagination And any minor population drift would still have the Israelite DNA if that is where they originated. There is absolutely no evidence of the BOM people anywhere.
Apparent anachronisms such as honeybees in Ether, long ocean voyages, or unusual battle descriptions are approached by LDS scholars with the understanding that our archaeological and scientific knowledge of ancient America is incomplete. The term “bees” may refer to a different species than the European honeybee, and the Jaredite barges may have traveled along ocean currents in ways we do not fully understand. The dramatic account of Shiz’s final moments can be interpreted as a description of involuntary muscular reflexes rather than a literal continuation of consciousness.
The excuses the LDS comes up with are not credible. The Jaredite barges traveling forever has no credible explanation because Smith just made it up. And why it is science does not show “involuntary muscular reflexes…” once the head is detached? Give me medical evidence.
How can changes to the BOM be excused by scribal error with Smith was the only scribe from the original at he translated looking into his hat?
AND there is no way Peter’s sermon is copied from a sermon by Jesus long before Peter preached it, and with reformed Egyptian coming out exactly, word-for-word as Peter would preach late in KJV!
Again, with polygamy, the LDS god is fickle. He calls it wicked and yet he says for Smith that it is blessed!
Alma says Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem when he was born in Bethlehem? That would be a false prophecy.
You’ve not even attempted to address all the other evidence of fakery in all four episodes I’ve included.
Joseph Smith never claimed to know “reformed Egyptian” as a linguistic system, nor did he describe the translation as a conventional, word‑for‑word decoding. His own statements consistently frame the process as revelatory. In religious history, inspired translation often reflects the translator’s linguistic environment—the Septuagint, New Testament quotations, and even modern Bible translations demonstrate this. The presence of King James phrasing in the Book of Mormon therefore does not logically prove plagiarism; it simply shows that the revelation came through Joseph’s existing scriptural vocabulary. Glenn’s argument only works if one assumes a rigid, mechanical translation model that Joseph himself never taught.
Witness descriptions of the translation process were devotional recollections, not technical manuals. Saying that “words would not move” reflects how the experience felt, not a claim that the text was permanently fixed in its earliest written form. Textual refinement is normal in scripture; the Bible contains thousands of variants across manuscripts without undermining its inspiration. The vast majority of Book of Mormon changes are grammatical or clarifying, exactly what one would expect from a dictated text written by scribes and later typeset by 19th‑century printers. Glenn’s insistence that inspiration must exclude human involvement is a standard not applied to any other sacred text.
His archaeological and DNA objections rely on the assumption that absence of evidence equals evidence of fraud. Archaeology of the Americas is still incomplete—entire civilizations such as the Olmec were unknown until the 20th century. Likewise, population genetics shows that small migrant groups absorbed into large populations often leave no detectable DNA signature after centuries of admixture. Anachronisms in translation are also not unique to the Book of Mormon; the King James Bible itself contains terms that reflect the translators’ own linguistic world rather than the ancient one. If the Book of Mormon is an inspired translation, similar effects are unsurprising.
Glenn’s claims about polygamy are historically inaccurate. God explicitly commands levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25, requiring a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow. That is a divine command, not mere tolerance. God also regulates polygamy in Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21, and biblical patriarchs—including Abraham, Jacob, and Moses—practiced plural marriage with divine approval. The Bible never labels their plural marriages as adultery. Thus, the idea that God has never commanded or sanctioned polygamy is simply incorrect, and the claim that situational commandments make God “fickle” does not align with the biblical record.
Regarding specific textual issues, similar sermons in different dispensations do not prove copying unless one assumes a purely human author. Alma’s reference to Christ being born “at Jerusalem” is consistent with ancient usage; the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to Bethlehem as being “of Jerusalem” because it lies within its district. The dramatic account of Shiz’s movements after decapitation is not medically impossible—post‑decapitation reflexes such as the “Lazarus sign” are documented. Glenn’s objections rely on modern literalism rather than ancient narrative conventions.
Finally, the claim that there is “absolutely no evidence” for Book of Mormon peoples overstates what current science can conclude. Mesoamerica contains abundant evidence of large populations, warfare, fortifications, metallurgy, and writing systems—features consistent with the societies the Book of Mormon describes. The text itself never claims that Nephites or Jaredites were the only inhabitants of the Americas, and a limited‑geography model aligns far better with both the text and the archaeological record than the outdated hemispheric model Glenn critiques.
In short, Glenn’s objections depend on assumptions that are either debatable or demonstrably incorrect: that translation must be literal rather than revelatory, that inspiration excludes human error, that absence of evidence proves nonexistence, that biblical polygamy was never commanded, and that ancient phrasing must match modern expectations. A coherent defense of the Book of Mormon simply recognizes that revelation, translation, and ancient history do not operate according to the rigid modern categories Glenn insists upon.
I never claimed Smith said he knew “reformed Egyptian” (a made up language) rather he claimed that was the language of the plate he claimed to translate from.
Your whole dissertation is an attempt to excuse away the FACT that large segments of the KJV Bible were copied verbatim or with very little change and it is not logical to think one “reformed Egyptian” translated by God’s power would do that, since the KJV itself wasn’t based on the latest manuscript evidence. And when foreign words show up in the BOM—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, et al—it is an obvious fake. Why would God have French “Adieu” show up instead of “good bye” or “farewell’— the ENGLISH everyone spoke! Common sense says all this is highly impossible for a legitimate translation of an ancient language no one has found to exist to begin with!
A perfect example of the KJV being copied is the word “Lucifer” showing up in the translation of the BOM, and used as a name of satan. It was NEVER even associated with with Satan in Scripture and the word itself is Latin, and was only in the KJV because the translators were using Jerome’s translation and he hadn’t much idea what the Hebrew word “Helel” meant, the word that was actually in the original!! So why would the BOM have the word Lucifer if it wasn’t plagiarism?? Here’s the skinny on that word and why Smith screwed up by saying it was satan:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2018/01/about-lucifer.html
To claim that God had to use Joseph’s existing scriptural vocabulary lacks common sense and limits God. God commanded Levirate marriage for single men (as far as I remember) and the purpose was to continue the family line, not for lust and adultery as with Smith. And no, the patriarch’s plural marriages were never given God’s approval, rather God just allowed the sin and the sin led to trouble among the women, etc. Allowing is not approval, nor commanded.
IF the Dead Sea scrolls say Bethlehem being of Jerusalem it would only be like saying a Chicago suburb is “Aurora of the Chicago area” but when specifying a birth site it would specify the actual suburb, not “of the area.” And the D.S. scrolls in that context are not discussing Christ’s birthplace and GOD certainly would not lie about the actual city where Jesus was born.
A revelatory translation would not have the plagiarisms and vast errors in said translation. But then, the LDS god is a man and everyone can be a god in the LDS theology while the true GOD of Christianity is the only existing God who created the universe and specifically stated there is no other God nor should any other god (pagan idols) be worshipped.
Your arguments have been made and lack common sense.
And as a solid argument against the idea that God approved of polygamy, I challenge the reader to view this article:
https://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/10/gods-view-of-polygamy.html
Levirate marriage did sometimes end up being a polygamous marriage but it was ONLY for a specific purpose and not to satisfy the lust of a person wanting more wives.
Post a Comment