Elder Christofferson creates the following strawman: "There was steel in the Middle East around the time of Lehi, so maybe there was steel in America at the same time."

The problem, however, doesn’t lie with the ability or knowledge to produce steel at the time Lehi lived. The problem lies in the fact that no ancient American steel tools or weapons (or traces or evidence of them or their manufacture) have ever been found. Elder Christofferson is using a strawman by sidestepping the actual argument (that no steel has ever been found in ancient America) and refuting a weaker argument (that steel was not capable of being manufactured at the time of Lehi).

The Book of Mormon describes vast battles, with military forces dwarfing those of the Roman Empire (the Roman military maxed out around 350,000 soldiers) involving the heavy use of metallurgy. Contrary to the accounts in the Book of Mormon, not a single steel sword, helmet, armor, chariot, spear, etc. has been found.

There is zero evidence for the argument Elder Christofferson failed to address. No steel has ever been found in ancient America. That steel was manufactured in the seventh century BC in the Middle East has no bearing on whether steel was manufactured or used on a massive scale in ancient America, as depicted in the Book of Mormon. Christofferson's argument is like saying, “The Chinese could make fireworks a long time ago, so maybe the Europeans could likewise make fireworks at the same time.” Sure, they maybe could have, but there is no evidence that they did.

While it is true that the absense of evidence does not necessarily prove (with 100% certainty) that something never existed, the absence of evidence does decrease the likelihood that something existed. The notion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is not just a rule of thumb – it is a law of Probability Theory. If there is some hypothesis H and some event E such that P(E|H) > P(E), we know that P(H|E) > P(H), or “E is evidence in favor of H.” If this is the case, it is also true that P(~E|H) <P(~E), so we can conclude that P(H|~E) <P(H), or “not observing E lowers the probability of H.” This video demonstrates mathematical proof that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Mormon apologists and now the Church (since one of its apostles just used it) often commit the fallacy of equivocation with the “absence of evidence” phrase, which can have multiple implied definitions:

The most useful definition of “absence of evidence” is “lack of data.”

There is another definition: “Lack of presence.”

These are not the same things. If you check some area for steel artifacts and do not find any, you don’t have “lack of data.” You have data. You know that there are no steel artifacts in that area. You get a ‘0’ instead of a ‘1’ in your grid for that ground. In the case of steel in North America, we can have checked a sufficient % of the ground for evidence of steel, find nothing, and actually have lots of data, not just an ‘absence of evidence’ (lack of presence).

Here is an analogy to further illustrate this point:

And here's an even more obvious analogy:

The Book of Mormon is an elephant in a garage. Like the elephant, it makes enough claims that it’s virtually certain we’d find evidence after almost 200 years of searching. So, not finding any evidence is evidence against the book and its claims.

FairMormon should know better than to make a claim without evidence only to turn around and ask for it in return from the critics.

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
– Christopher Hitchens –

This is just misdirection. Here are the facts:

The presence of 17th century KJV italics and 1769 KJV errors – word for word – in the Book of Mormon is its own damning evidence. These errors totally undermine the claim that Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon and the claim that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth.

Like a crime scene, we do not need a video recording or an affidavit from the suspect or a witness to show whether or not the suspect murdered with a gun. The body riddled with 9mm bullets and the presence of 9mm shell casings on the floor is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that the suspect used a 9mm pistol in the murder.

In the case of 17th century KJV italics and 1769 KJV edition errors in an ancient text such as the Book of Mormon? Whether or not we have direct evidence that Joseph Smith had a 1769 KJV edition Bible or access to it during translation is irrelevant and diversionary to the real question asked in a different way: Why are there “9mm bullets” in a body that existed only between 2200 BC – 421 AD? Thousands of years before “9mm bullets” even existed?

FairMormon acknowledges the evidence of 1769 KJV errors and 17th century KJV italics in the Book of Mormon and the weakness of relying on the argument that the “witnesses never reported that a Bible or any other book was present during the translation,” by conceding below that “it is entirely possible that Joseph had access to a Bible during the period of translation.”

That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Ignoring the possibility that God himself revealed the errors, at best Joseph was reciting from memory passages from the 1769 KJV Bible, rather than “dictating,” as FairMormon phrases it. At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren’t around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible.

In any event, the inclusion of errors unique to the 1769 KJV Bible edition and 17th century KJV translator’s italics in the Book of Mormon – word for word – is its own utterly damning evidence.

This claim contradicts many accounts of how the translation actually happened. As Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer described the rock-in-the-hat translation method:

FairMormon’s claim likewise contradicts several other witness accounts, including those of Martin Harris, and the Church’s recent Gospel Topics article on the translation process, which states that “Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.”

Joseph did not have, according to these accounts, "general freedom" for “optional wording” in the Book of Mormon. The exact words came off the stone in the hat.

Note: FairMormon deleted the following FairMormon response on 10.6.13:

“The only description of the translation process that Joseph Smith ever gave was that it was performed by the ‘gift and power of God,’ and that the translation was performed using the ‘Urim and Thummim.’ Since Joseph translated in the open using the stone and the hat, and witnesses never reported that a Bible or any other book was present during the translation, the only conclusion that we can reach to explain the presence of Bible passages which match the King James Version is that the Lord revealed them to Joseph in that manner. We do not know the reason for this.”

We don’t know why but we know that God gave Joseph Smith 1769 King James edition errors – unique to only the 1769 edition – to put into the Book of Mormon? This is the best FairMormon can do?

Again, there is no legitimate reason for God to have revealed errors to Joseph. The errors undermine the claims that the Book of Mormon is a translation and that it is the most correct book.

Perhaps the reason why FairMormon can only come to the conclusion that God gave Joseph Smith 1769 KJV edition errors to put into the Book of Mormon is because FairMormon refuses to acknowledge the possibility that God wasn’t involved with the creation of the Book of Mormon at all.

The problem with Joseph’s 1838 claim is that it’s untrue. Joseph did not translate the Book of Mormon we have today with the Urim and Thummim or the physical plates. He used a rock in a hat. A rock he found on his neighbor’s property in 1822. This is the exact same method that Joseph used to con people out of their money in his family’s treasure hunting business. FairMormon concedes that Joseph used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon here.

I am glad that FairMormon brings this up as this is an excellent Case Study of how the Church and Mormon apologists use the Orwellian “anti-Mormon” card as a scary boogeyman in intimidating and discouraging Latter-day Saints from actually engaging in balanced research about the Church and its history.

The following graphics and information are what I borrowed from the so-called “anti-Mormon” Mormon Handbook website:

The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1, dated in the Book of Mormon to be around 550 BC, quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV – including the translators’ italicized words. Additionally, Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea. The problem with this is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4:14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea, (b) “Red” sea is not found in any source manuscripts, and (c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away.

In the above example, the KJV translators added 7 italicized words not found in the source Hebrew manuscripts to its English translation. Why does the Book of Mormon, completed 1,200 years prior, contain the exact identical seven italicized words of 17th century translators?

Notice that FairMormon does not say that this is false, that it’s a lie, or that it’s incorrect.

The following hypothetical conversation between FairMormon and an informed Latter-day Saint illustrates the weakness in FairMormon’s criticism:

The above graphics from this so-called “anti-Mormon” website simply list scriptures that every Latter-day Saint has access to. All you have to do is pull out the scriptures and compare the Book of Mormon verses to the KJV Bible verses to see that the 17th century italics are indeed present in the supposed ancient Book of Mormon text.

FairMormon is just attempting to intimidate their Latter-day Saint readers from looking at the evidence by labeling it “anti-Mormon,” while ironically conceding that the evidence is true and factual.

Matt shares the problems and absurdities of the Church’s and Mormon apologetic use of the "anti-Mormon" card and how it does not serve Latter-day Saints in their quest for truth:

“In this case, Joseph may have simply selected the wording of these passages to represent what was revealed to him.”

There are major problems with this assertion. First, no witness account of the translation process confirms that Joseph consulted the Bible during the process. Second, the official 2013 Church article on the translation process, as well as contemporary eyewitness accounts, contradict this assertion. As stated above, the Church’s recent Gospel Topics article states that “Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.”

Next, Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer (as well as other witnesses) debunks FairMormon’s “loose translation” theory:

The key concession made by FairMormon here is their acknowledgment that it is indeed possible that Joseph consulted the KJV Bible for writing the Book of Mormon. This is supported by the damning evidence of 1769 KJV errors and 17th century italics – word for word – in the Book of Mormon.

Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.

According to the above-referenced September 1977 Ensign, Joseph Smith was sitting there translating the Book of Nephi when he recognized the text as Isaiah, stopped the translation, put down his hat and magical rock, picked up his 1769 KJV Bible, and copied over the Isaiah verses including its unique 1769 KJV errors and italics into the “most correct book” Book of Mormon.

Am I really supposed to take this seriously?

Why would Joseph need to do this? How does it make any sense that Joseph stops translation coming direct from God to grab errors and italics from a book that has been corrupted over the centuries through numerous translations? A Bible that Joseph later pointed to as needing correction and which he “corrected” in his “inspired” translation of the Bible?

In any event, this scenario is contradicted by eyewitness accounts of the translation process, as well as the process described by the Church’s December 2013 Gospel Topics article.

“Modern readers are accustomed to thinking of a 'translation' as only the conversion of text in one language to another.”

This make sense, given the multitude of sources (including the Church-sanctioned Gospel Topics article) supporting a “tight” translation method, including the following account from David Whitmer:

If the Bible verses were good enough for the "most correct book," there is no reason to change them in the JST of the Bible (other than to obfuscate the plagiarism). If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah.

As I have stated in the CES Letter:

Important Note: The LDS Church made FairMormon's opinions and theories obsolete by releasing its official essay on the Book of Mormon and DNA Studies.

The Church's official January 2014 essay can be read here.

A critic's response to the Church's official Book of Mormon and DNA Studies essay can be read here.

I like how FairMormon calls a 170+ year Mormon teaching believed and taught by “prophets, seers, and revelators” an “assumption.” It was not an “assumption.” It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006, after the DNA evidence started pouring in.

The Prophet Joseph Smith disagrees with FairMormon’s “integration” and “Limited Geography” theories. This is what Joseph stated in the March 1, 1842 Wentworth Letter:

Thus, the Prophet Joseph Smith claimed that America was uninhabited prior to the arrival of the Jaredites around 2,200 BC, which we now know is incorrect. Joseph also claims that Jaredites came from the Tower of Babel, an event that respectable biblical scholars, linguistics, and scientists all concur as not being a literal event.

Perhaps it’s for this very reason that the Church omitted this very paragraph from its Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith on LDS.org. Notice that the entire Wentworth Letter is there word for word except for the above paragraph.

What’s hilarious about this is that Joseph Smith gave explicit instructions that “all that I shall ask at his hands is that he publish the account entire, ungarnished, and without misrepresentation” in the header of the letter and here his own Church in the 21st century is not following the Prophet’s own instructions by editing the letter and omitting and hiding the above paragraph of the letter from members of the Church in its Joseph Smith manual.

Perhaps even more important than what Joseph himself believed is how Joseph claimed to have received this knowledge regarding the ancient American inhabitants. Specifically, Joseph claimed to have received this knowledge from Moroni and other angels. Joseph described the teachings he received from Moroni in the Wentworth letter:

Indeed, Moroni visited Joseph at least 22 times over the course of Joseph’s life. In addition, Elder John Taylor taught that Joseph Smith was visited by Nephi, who would have had first-hand knowledge of the accuracy of the “integration” theory.

Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described Joseph’s knowledge of the ancient Americans, which Joseph relayed after Moroni’s initial visit:

In short, Joseph did not merely believe that the people described in the Book of Mormon were the original inhabitants, he claimed to have been informed as much by angelic visitors. Thus, in order to believe in an “integration” or “limited geography” theory, one must believe not only that Joseph was mistaken in his beliefs, but also that angelic ministers (some of whom were ancient inhabitants themselves) deliberately misled Joseph when teaching him about the origins of America’s ancient inhabitants. I seriously doubt that Chapel Mormons are prepared to believe in lying angels.

Another example of this teaching being accepted and taught by a latter-day prophet was Spencer W. Kimball’s “Of Royal Blood” talk in the July 1971 Ensign, which is quoted below.

The notion that Lehi & Co. “likely intermingled with existing natives” only ever came after DNA sequencing in the 1990s and 2000s proved that Lehi and his offspring were not the only inhabitants of the Americas after all. There is a reason why the belief that the inhabitants of the Americas were descendants of Lehi “had been the generally held belief from the time that the Church was restored.” Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric model, and he claimed to have been taught as much by angelic beings, at least one of which lived among the ancient civilizations himself. He believed that all of the Native American Indians were direct descendants of Lehi. He sent missionaries to the “Lamanites” to preach this teaching. So did the “prophets, seers, and revelators” after him. President Spencer W. Kimball was a major believer and proponent of the Church teaching that the Indians are the principal descendants or ancestors of Lehi. This is what Kimball said regarding the Indians:

The Church does not officially acknowledge that “Lehi’s group likely intermingled with the native inhabitants.” The Church just quietly replaced “principal” to “among the” in the Book of Mormon title page in 2006 after the DNA verdicts came in. The Church has been especially silent on the issue since the DNA evidence surfaced. FairMormon is attempting to put words into the Church’s mouth.

There is substantial scientific evidence of habitation in the Americas for thousands of years prior to the claimed Lehi and yes, Jaradite arrivals. There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Lehi and his family “intermingled with the native inhabitants of the American continents.”

There is no DNA evidence of any Hebrew or Middle Eastern markers in the DNA composition of the natives of the Americas.

It is a scientific fact that even if Lehi’s group had integrated, instead of being the sole occupants of the Americas, as everyone in the Church – including its prophets, seers, and revelators – have long believed until DNA came along, there would still be DNA markers referencing a Hebrew or Middle Eastern origin. The idea that it can be ‘filtered out’ through integration is almost as ridiculous as the idea that Anubis is a human headed idolatrous priest known as "Elkenah".

FairMormon quotes Dr. Simon Southerton’s comment made 5 years ago in 2008:

Dr. Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop and the author of “Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church,” has graciously provided me a personal rebuttal to the above hit-and-run quote that FairMormon is quoting him on. The following is Dr. Southerton’s email response to FairMormon:

The entire “Could Generations of Lamanite DNA Just Disappear?” article is a must read. Some of the following paragraphs from the article illustrate some of the several fascinating recent developments on DNA and the Book of Mormon:

Dr. Southerton’s claim that technology has now advanced in the DNA field is confirmed in a very recent astounding and groundbreaking study led by a team of U.S. and Canadian anthropologists who have traced a direct DNA link between the 5,500 year old remains of an aboriginal woman found on a British Columbia island as well as a 2,500 year old female also found nearby to a living Tsimshian woman from the Metlakatla First Nation. Dr. Ripan Malhi of University of Illinois stated the following in a July 2013 research summary:

Thus, either FairMormon is deliberately misleading its readers on the realities of today’s DNA capabilities and conclusions or FairMormon’s understanding of DNA and its damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is out of sync with the latest DNA science, technologies, and scholarship.

In any event, DNA evidence has definitively established that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. FairMormon’s attempts to reconcile this fact with the narratives of the Book of Mormon by, for example, arguing for “integration” or “limited geography” theories are likewise undermined by DNA evidence, and by Joseph Smith’s own claims (which in turn are based upon the teachings of native American resurrected angelic beings who visited him).

Contrary to FairMormon's 2005 chart, which is unsupported by sources, below is a corrected 2014 chart, supported by credible sources:

To access live hyperlink sources for the above chart, click here.

Aside from the specific anachronisms (which I discuss in detail below), the reality is that as "knowledge expands," it in fact provides more solid evidence against the Church's truth claims rather than for them.

Among the more significant examples are the DNA evidence described above, Egyptology and and the Book of Abraham, and the recently discovered similarities between the Late War and the Book of Mormon. Other examples include: the evidence against the existence of any global flood, Noah's Ark, or the Tower of Babel; the evidence of life, including Hominids, existing (and dying) before the alleged existence of Adam and Eve; and the evidence that the Earth has existed for billions of years (rather than the 7,000 stated in D&C 77). These events and claims are included in the Book of Mormon, other scriptures, and have been espoused by current and past "prophets, seers, and revelators" who have literally believed in the above scientifically disproven events.

Returning to Book of Mormon anachronisms, I find FairMormon’s response, “what was once an anachronism turns out to be a legitimate feature of the ancient world” to be disingenuous. Notice that FairMormon does not say “turns out to be a legitimate feature of ‘pre-Columbian Americas’ or ‘ancient Americas’ or ‘America during Book of Mormon times'.” “Ancient world” allows FairMormon to expand to anywhere in the world in any vague time period (“ancient” is not clearly defined) while leaving their Latter-day Saint readers to interpret “ancient world” to also mean pre-Columbian Americas.

Further, FairMormon makes these astounding claims without providing any sources in their response. FairMormon's claims and findings would shock and surprise non-Mormon archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and scientists.

Zoology, Metallurgy, Archaeology, Anthropology, Linguistics, and Biology are all branches of science domains which expand well beyond BYU. Where are FairMormon’s non-LDS sources? Peer-reviewed sources from respected people and organizations not tainted or clouded by religious confirmation bias? Sources from individuals whose careers, values, and contributions are not measured and valued by their ability to find any evidence – stretched or not – to confirm their own religion’s truth claims? After all, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” In other words, never underestimate what the mind can rationalize when a career is at stake.

Looking at FairMormon’s 2005 charts, serious problems become apparent, such as:

It’s a joke for FairMormon to not include all of the anachronisms in the list. But then again, when the sole purpose of your charts is to do all you can to boost and prop up green boxes and percentages? I’d be tempted to leave stuff out too.

FairMormon does not provide any evidence to back up its claim that anachronisms expire as “knowledge expands.” These charts are misleading. No peer reviewed sources or evidences or references or explanations on how each of the anachronisms went from red to green or from red to yellow. We’re just expected to trust the data of a Mormon archaeologist/anthropologist and part-time apologist who gives talks at FairMormon and writes reviews for the Neal A. Maxwell Institute?

The best evidence that FairMormon can give us is data from a Mormon archaeologist / anthropologist / apologist? But nothing from non-Mormon sources or institutions. No peer review by non-Mormon professors and respected scientific and archaeological institutions?

FairMormon might as well give us the following chart to support the Book of Mormon since FairMormon thinks providing evidences, sources, and non-LDS apologetic peer-reviewed data is overrated:

Above Chart/Image Credit: Reddit /u/bewilderedbear

Yes, critics like the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society. Two of some of the world’s most renowned, reputable, and respected scientific research and education institutions.

Here’s what the National Geographic Society has to say about the Book of Mormon, including claims that there’s archaeological support for the book:

Key National Geographic points from the letter:

Not only does National Geographic make it clear that there is no evidence to substantiate the Book of Mormon, it also gives its endorsement of the following Smithsonian Institute letter:

In August 2013, a 17-year-old by the name of Zachary decided to email sixty college professors whose expertise was in one of the following fields: Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Archaeology, Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Anthropology, and Egyptology. Zachary sought their professional opinion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

Out of the sixty college professors that Zachary emailed, 25 responded. Out of the 25 who responded, 14 gave permission to Zachary to publish their names and comments. The responses that Zachary received from these experts are fascinating. The overwhelming consensus from these unbiased experts in pre-Columbian America archaeology/anthropology and Egyptology is that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham is historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data and evidence.

The responses from these professors and experts can be read here.

In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations:

Dr. Michael Coe, archaeologist and expert on the Maya and Central American archaeology, gave an outstanding interview recently regarding the problems and challenges that Limited Geography Model apologists such as FairMormon face in light of archaeological evidence in Central and South America, where the Limited Geography Model setting is claimed to be.

To objective archaeologists and scientists outside of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon has as much historic validity and utility as The Hobbit.

Where are all the bones, swords, armor, shields, helmets, and spears from these epic battles claimed in the Book of Mormon? Epic battles that took place at the Hill Cumorah (Rama to Jaredites)? The Jaredite nation supposedly ended there with 2,000,000 men slain. The Nephites and Lamanites also had a battle there in 421 AD where 230,000 warriors with weapons of steel were killed.

Why has not a single sword, helmet, shield, spear, armor and yes, bone, been found from one of these great ancient battle sites?

Contrast this remarkable lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon with the 1974 discovery of the Terracotta Warriors and Horses near Xian, China. This amazing army of some 8,000 Terracotta figures was buried in 210 BC, some 600 years before the purported final battle in the Book of Mormon. Surely, if there was battle at Cumorah in 421 AD which involved 230,000 men, there would be something to be found, but there isn’t. The year 421 AD, in archaeological and anthropological terms, is simply not that long ago.

FairMormon is putting words in the mouths of critics. When critics state that there is absolutely no evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites/Lamanites who numbered in the millions, they’re saying:

“There is no location that matches multiple items/technology/animals that the Book of Mormon states should be found in the time period specified. Examples of these items/technology/animals would be gold, steel, swords, horses, wheat, elephants, etc. Scientists are not necessarily just looking for names of people or places that are similar to ones in the Book of Mormon – just evidence of a culture that matches Book of Mormon claims.”

If the Book of Mormon is historical and the geography, for example, is real, then it is not unreasonable for Mormon scholars to put together – based on the data – of a potential location of one single Book of Mormon land. It is not unreasonable to then publish for peer-review this data in a non-Mormon journal that is not BYU-controlled. It is not unreasonable to have other archaeologists, anthropologists, and other experts to peer review the data. This is the scientific process which was used to find the lost city of Troy. This is the same scientific process that can lead to the discovery of Zarahemla. Unfortunately for the Church and its apologists, decades of vigorous archaeological and anthropological research has yielded nothing. This is also the same scientific process that was used to find the thousand-year-old Viking outpost in Canada. Quite frankly, it is beyond ridiculous that we can find a tiny Viking outpost in Canada which consisted of people who landed a thousand years ago in a very remote part of the Americas but we cannot find a trace of a massive Nephite/Lamanite civilization which numbered in the millions. It’s insane that a civilization roughly the size of the Roman Empire, spanning a time frame of 1,000 years, just completely vanished into thin air without a trace. The Romans left roads, aqueducts, coins, buildings, independent historical accounts, etc. all over Europe and the Mediterranean.

Where is the evidence for the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations?

This is a false claim. There is not “plenty of supporting evidence that anthropologically ties the Book of Mormon to ancient America.” Notice that FairMormon does not offer any sources to this “plenty of supporting evidence.”

If there was really “plenty of supporting evidence,” there wouldn’t be letters from reputable institutions such as the Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society dismissing the Book of Mormon as an unhistorical record.

This goes back to the charts that FairMormon used in the Anachronism section: zero evidence, zero sources, and zero non-Mormon/non-BYU peer-reviewed data.

“Critical questions. Faithful answers.” Indeed.

A detailed list of the Book of Mormon archaeology problems can be found here and here.

I address FairMormon's attack on the 28 geographical names below.

Before I get to those, however, I’d like to discuss additional evidence of similarities between the “345 Book of Mormon names” and a contemporaneous book available in Joseph’s time and backyard. Aside from FairMormon not sharing that many, if not most, of the “345 Book of Mormon names” are also biblical names, many of the names unique to the Book of Mormon are…well, not so unique.

There was a book published in 1791 by John Walker entitled, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names. In this book are a number of future Book of Mormon names, which appeared within alphabetized lists. This book was a common household reference in young Joseph Smith’s time and place. According to Larry Porter, “Walker’s Dictionary” was suggested for the curriculum in the Colesville, New York schools by the local commissioners in the fall of 1826.

This link does a side by side comparison between Book of Mormon names and Walker's Key Dictionary.

I agree with FairMormon. It was an oversight on my part to include Holley’s “Monroe = Moroni” claim, which I do not agree with. I removed Holley’s “Monroe = Moroni” claim.

I stand by my assertion that Joseph Smith derived “Camorah” and “Moroni” from Captain Kidd stories, which included adventures on what is now known as the Comoros Islands, as I detailed in the CES Letter and which I expand further below in the Hill Cumorah section.

Of course, FairMormon never engages in mutually-exclusive claim-making. For example, there is no conflict with Joseph translating the Book of Mormon by putting his face to a darkened hat and reading the words, as they appear in English on the seer stone, and spelling out names he could not pronounce...while simultaneously claiming that the KJV Bible errors in the Book of Mormon is easily explained by Joseph simply using the Bible to help with the translation.

Before we go over each one of the towns/cities, I want to illustrate an important concept:

In the 1980s, I lived in Diamond Bar, California. In the early 20th century, it was known as “Diamond Bar Ranch,” and it was at the time one of the largest working cattle ranches in the western United States. In the 1950s, it was acquired by Transamerica Corporation for the purpose of developing one of the nation’s first master-planned communities. It was after Transamerica’s acquisition that it gave the “Diamond Bar” name to its new master-planned community.

So what does this mean for this discussion? Fast forward into the distant future, 150 years from now. The only information that you have about Diamond Bar is that it was a city in California and that it was incorporated as a city on April 18, 1989. Your first natural assumption would be that prior to 1989, Diamond Bar didn’t exist, at least not under the name “Diamond Bar.” However, this assumption would be false, as the name goes back to the early 20th century, as I explained above.

One of FairMormon’s strategies and arguments for many of the names was to pull in the dates from Wikipedia and other sources of when the towns were incorporated so as to say, “See?! This town wasn’t incorporated until so-and-so, which is so-and-so years after the publication of the Book of Mormon!” The problem with this strategy and approach is that the date of incorporation does not always mean that the town and its name did not exist for decades before its incorporation, as was the case of Diamond Bar.

Here are more examples of Date Settled vs. Incorporated as a Town/City, this one focused on towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Notice the gap between settlement and incorporation dates of some of the towns are 100+ years.

Another important note I want to make here is that Vernal Holley is dead. We can’t contact him to find out exactly where he got his sources. FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be FairMormon as to how Holley found some of the towns. He may have used letters, newspapers, post office records, obituaries, local city/county library records, etc. in which records and books are not accessible online. We do not know.

This is evident in the "Jerusalem" claim. FairMormon claims that Jerusalem, Ohio does not show up on a 1822 map. If one searches on the internet for when Jerusalem was first settled, they won't find any information. So, the logical conclusion would be to assume that Jerusalem wasn't established before the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, this would be incorrect as there is evidence that the first house in Jerusalem, Ohio was built in 1825. I was able to locate a resident who volunteered to go to the Monroe County Public Library in Woodsfield, Ohio and search for the information. She found it an offline book entitled Monroe County, Ohio: A History. Simply doing a Google search may not show the whole picture. There are still numerous local books and records that are hidden offline awaiting digitization.

Below I list each town, provide FairMormon's criticism, and then offer a response to FairMormon's criticism.

1. “The map places Jacobugath, site of "King Jacob's" dissenters far in the land southward, when the Book of Mormon has it far in the land northward (3 Nephi 7:9-12; see also 3 Nephi 9:9).”
   
   FairMormon is adding words to Book of Mormon that don’t exist. The only geographical reference to “Jacobugath” is that it is in the: “northernmost part of the land.” It does not say what land, and there is no universally acknowledged “land.” For FairMormon to assume that “northernmost” must mean that it’s the most north on this map in my letter is really reaching for something.
   
   If I were in St. George, Utah, and I said I was going to the “northernmost part of the land,” you would not know whether I was going to the “northernmost” part of St. George or if I was going all the way up to the Utah/Idaho border or if I was going all the way to the United States/Canadian border. It depends on what “land” means. We do not know what “land” in this scripture refers to.


2. “The map places the land of first inheritance [land of Lehi-Nephi] is on the eastern coast of the United States, while the Book of Mormon is clear that Lehi and his group landed on the western coast.”
   
   Actually, the Book of Mormon isn’t clear on this point. Notice that FairMormon fails to offer any source for their claim that Lehi and his group “landed on the western coast.” The reason why FairMormon fails to offer any source, as they did for “Jacobugath” and “Morianton,” is because FairMormon knows that the Book of Mormon does not say which coast Lehi & Co. landed. Further, FairMormon fails to tell their readers that there’s actually controversy within LDS apologetic circles as to which coast Lehi & Co. landed. I find it disingenuous, to say the least, that FairMormon tries to present this as factual to their readers when they know it is not factual.
   
   FairMormon makes this claim on the assumption that LDS apologist Hugh B. Nibley was right in his premise that the “land of Bountiful” was on the coast in the Middle East and that Lehi & Co. didn’t sail around Africa but rather through the Pacific. This is just opinion as the Book of Mormon is silent on which coast Lehi & Co. landed.
   
   Here is an LDS apologist making the argument that Lehi & Co. went the Atlantic ocean route.
   
   And here's the pro-LDS Meridian magazine also making the case that Lehi & Co. sailed across the Atlantic ocean.
   
   So, there is no consensus, evidence, or support for FairMormon’s assumption that Lehi & Co. landed on the Pacific coast.
   
   Therefore, FairMormon’s claim that Lehi-Nephi is inaccurately placed on the map is unsupported.


3. “The City of Morianton should be by the eastern seashore, near the city of Lehi (Alma 50:25).”
   
   Neither is Hill Cumorah in New York, according to the “Limited Geography Model” espoused by both FairMormon and the Neal Maxwell Institute. Never mind that Joseph Smith and “prophets, seers, and revelators” have taught it’s in New York. Never mind that Joseph Smith was, in turn, taught about the Book of Mormon civilizations by an angelic Moroni who himself deposited the plates in Hill Cumorah. Never mind that the Church still holds Hill Cumorah pageants there today.
   
   Unofficial apologists have to invent another Cumorah to try to make the dots line up. Yet, the dots aren’t lining up. As long as this is the standard required, then having Ramah show up in the wrong place by a couple hundred miles isn’t a big deal.
   
   Complaining that Ramah and Morianton are in the “wrong place” on a map is an argument given by minds that believe the Book of Mormon names are real places. On the flip side of this same coin, a critic might say “Joseph & Co. made a mistake and didn’t watch the geography carefully.”
   
   Here’s the point that unofficial apologists and the “Joseph made a mistake and didn’t watch his geography” critics fail to grasp: the point of the map is not whether or not it matches exactly. The point is that it matches mostly. There are a striking number of names around the location in which Joseph Smith grew up, similar versions of which are in the Book of Mormon. Moreover, many of these similar place names are also situated in a geographically similar manner to which they are situated in the Book of Mormon. The coincidence is simply too great to ignore.
   
   The maps do not have to match perfectly or even have to make sense. It’s like pointing out that Lord of the Rings’ Minas Tirith didn’t have enough farmland to support itself. Yes, Minas Tirith is a made up location. Getting it wrong in a fictional book is an indication it is fiction. Ramah being in Canada and being the name “Cumorah” in Jaradite just might be an indication that Joseph & Co. made stuff up.
   
   Lord of the Rings J. R. R. Tolkien based his Middle Earth on locations around him at the time of his writings but he changed names and the map so that it would be “his own world.” An exact match isn’t necessary.
   
   We see this modus operandi of plagiarism from Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham where he copied completely independent and unrelated hieroglyphics from one different papyrus to fill in the damaged section of Facsimile 2. He then gives completely inaccurate translations that he presumably pulled from his imagination. Even FairMormon concedes that Joseph copied the hieroglyphics.

Credit: The Book of Abraham: Criticisms, Defenses, and Implications

Credit: The Book of Abraham: Criticisms, Defenses, and Implications

Further, Joseph not only copied the above hieroglyphics into Facsimile 2, but he copied the following boat picture from the un-translated Book of Joseph papyrus to fill in the damaged section on the top right part of Facsimile 2:

There is more evidence of the Book of Mormon setting being in Joseph Smith’s region than there is for FairMormon’s fringe Limited Geography Model. The following links are some examples of hypothetical Book of Mormon geography maps illustrated by apologists:

As shown by these examples, Limited Geography apologists cannot even agree on where the events of the Book of Mormon took place. They have no real geographical setting in which to set the Book of Mormon. Not only do they have to ignore the similarities in town names in Joseph’s backyard but they have to ignore Joseph Smith and other “prophets, seers, and revelators” who taught that the Book of Mormon took place in New York, Illinois, and elsewhere on the North American continent. Joseph even pointed to the Hill Cumorah as the actual Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. This is not good enough, however, for Limited Geography apologists who insist they know better than Joseph Smith, latter-day “prophets, seers, and revelators” and the Church itself.

I agree with FairMormon. It was an honest oversight on my part to include Holley’s “Monroe = Moroni” claim, which I do not agree with. I removed Holley’s “Monroe = Moroni” claim.

I stand by my assertion that Joseph Smith got “Camorah” and “Moroni” from Captain Kidd stories, which included adventures on what is now known as the Comoros Islands as I detailed in the CES Letter and which I expand upon further below.

Yes, FairMormon, we know that they eventually got around to correcting the so-called “spelling error,” which is why I had to refer to the original spelling in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon.

It’s worth pulling out what I wrote in the CES Letter on this topic:

Off the eastern coast of Mozambique in Africa is an island country called “Comoros.” Prior to its French occupation in 1841, the islands were known by its Arabic name, “Camora.” There is an 1808 map of Africa that refers to the islands as “Camora.”

Camora is near center in the above 1808 Map of Africa

The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly “Camora”)? Moroni. “Camora” and settlement “Moroni” were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd (a pirate and treasure hunter) which many 19th century New Englanders – especially treasure hunters – were familiar with.

In fact, the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled as “Camorah.”

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide on whether or not the consistent uniform spelling of “Camorah” in the 1830 Book of Mormon is coincidentally and simply just a “spelling error.”

FairMormon deleted the following FairMormon comment on November 28, 2013:
"Pointing out a possible relationship like
Comoros = Cumorah and Moroni = Moroni is not sufficient."

Only in FairMormon universe is Camora = Camorah and Moroni = Moroni “not sufficient” yet an “NHM” carved on an altar in the Middle East is sufficient evidence for “Nahom.”

"The author states that Camora and Moroni were "common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd," but does not cite a single source that can be checked."

Captain Kidd has a direct connection to Comoros islands. The islands were a part of his famous adventures and stories.

In February 1697, Kidd landed his Adventure Galley ship at the island of Mehila in the Comoros. The ship required repairs after the long voyage from New York. It was in the Comoros that Kidd lost 50 of his crew members to fever and disease; all in the span of one week.

It was during this crisis that Kidd became really concerned about his situation. He left London almost a year previously and he had still not taken a prize. The terms of his agreement required him to be back in Boston the following month with his booty. Kidd’s provisions were running low and he was desperate. With his ship repaired and more crew members recruited to replace the crew that died, Kidd set sail to the Comoros island of Johanna on March 18, 1697.

The following map from Wikipedia outlines Captain Kidd’s journey and pirating activities between April 1696 – April 1698. Notice Kidd’s infamous stop on the Comoros islands in March 1697.

Source: Wikipedia

The following is a 1748 map of the Comoros island of Johanna (also known as “Anjouan”). “Meroni” appears on this map as an anchorage port for the village. Captain Kidd visited the Johanna island twice and was familiar with Meroni as it was a port.

For some Mormon apologists, the evidence is so compelling that they have suggested that Lehi and his family may have encountered the Comoros islands on their initial voyage from the Arabian Peninsula to the western hemisphere, and that the Nephite civilization therefore may have retained a collective knowledge of the names of “Comoros” and “Moroni”.

Captain Kidd spent considerable time in the Comoros islands and the Indian Ocean between 1697-1698 seizing booty from the French and other ships. Shortly after Kidd returned to New York in 1699, Kidd was arrested for killing one of his crew members by the name of Moore. He was also arrested for capturing a treasure ship called the “Quedagh Merchant” in the Indian Ocean near the Comoros islands.

Professor Ronald Huggins wrote:

“The fact that the pirate [Kidd] was hanged for crimes allegedly committed in the vicinity of Moroni on Grand Comoro [Island] is significant.” – “From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni”, p.19

"It is unlikely that any source would have contained the name of ‘Moroni’."

FairMormon is incorrect.

The above 1748 map of Anjouan/Johanna has “Meroni” as an anchorage point for the village.

Camora and the Moroni were part of Captain Kidd’s adventures and stories, which captivated young Joseph Smith and his family’s imagination. The following testimonies and statements from Joseph’s Palmyra peers and neighbors attest to this:

Joseph “had learned to read works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the ‘dime novels’ of the present day. The stories of Stephen Buroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest claims for his expanding mental perceptions.” – Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism

Joseph as a boy “had for a library a copy of the ‘Arabian Nights,’ stories of Captain Kidd, and a few novels.” – Philetus Spear, Early Mormon Documents 3:130

Joseph Smith, Sr., Joseph’s father, was “at times engaged in hunting for Captain Kidd’s buried treasure,” and that young Joseph’s own reading about the pirate had “made a deep impression on him.” – James H. Kennedy, Early Days of Mormonism: Palmyra, Kirtland and Nauvoo, p. 8,13.

Captain Kidd was “his [Joseph, Jr.] hero.” – Ann Eaton, Early Mormon Documents, 3:148

Fascination with Captain Kidd was not limited to young Joseph Smith. It was prevalent and widespread among many individuals, especially treasure hunters – which Joseph and some of his family were – in early 19th century New York and New England. The search for buried treasure was motivated by Captain Kidd’s legend and other pirate lore.

Further reading:

• From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni
• Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd, Cumorah and Moroni
• Joseph Smith, Captain Kidd Lore, and Treasure-Seeking in New York and New England during the Early Republic

FairMormon commits a strawman fallacy. I never claimed that Joseph used maps or that he searched in maps for “Camora” and “Moroni.” I claim that he learned about the islands and “Moroni” from Captain Kidd stories and adventures, which the evidence show Joseph was captivated and familiar with.

The following is an example of FairMormon disingenuity and modus operandi:

On FairMormon’s other “Comoros/Moroni” page on their website, FairMormon claims the following:

“Advocacy of the Comoros/Moroni link seems an act of desperation. It has not been proved that Joseph saw the names, or that any source available to him linked them. Furthermore, latching on to two names in an obscure reference work does nothing to explain the incredible complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon…This claim, like many efforts to explain away the Book of Mormon, commits the logical fallacy of the Appeal to probability. This fallacy argues that because something is even remotely possible, it must be true.”

FairMormon’s entire focus in that section along with this section is on maps and gazetteers. FairMormon completely ignores the amazing evidence from Captain Kidd, his adventures, and Joseph’s obsession with Kidd. FairMormon does not offer to their readers this evidence. Instead, they create a strawman and then they misapply the “appeal to probability” fallacy to the strawman they created while leaving their Latter-day Saint readers completely in the dark about the amazing Captain Kidd evidences and links to Joseph Smith and his peers.

Here’s a parallel which illustrates the absurdity of FairMormon’s positioning and strawman:

Paul, a teenager, loves reading Harry Potter. He’s captivated by Potter and the stories. He later creates a story about a land of “Englund” with a wizard by the name of “Wiltshire” (also in Harry Potter stories).

Modeling the same response FairMormon provided with Camora/Moroni to this parallel, a FairMormon response would look something like this:

“This claim commits the logical fallacy of appeal to probability. When the facts are examined, even the possibility of your son seeing England and Wiltshire recedes; the idea becomes absurd. The following references were consulted from the Paul’s school library:

Encyclopedia Britannica, 32 volumes. Relevant contents: 32,640 pages of double columned minuscule print, with only two references to England or Wiltshire.

US Gazetteer, US Census. Relevant contents: thousands of dynamic web pages of technical text, with no references to England or Wiltshire."

See how ridiculous this is? Paul knows the names from the story. Joseph Smith knew the names from Captain Kidd stories. Neither Paul nor Joseph Smith needed to consult reference books or gazetteers and nobody suggested that he did.

Amazingly, FairMormon concedes that the parallels have “validity” but then adds a “but” at the end: “if one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon.” In other words, B.H. Roberts’ parallels are valid except that they’re not under FairMormon’s fringe Limited Geography theory, which is unsupported and at direct odds with the Church and its “prophets, seers, and revelators.”

Unlike unofficial apologetic attempts to rewrite Mormon history and the Book of Mormon along with overriding the teachings of Joseph Smith and prophets, Joseph Smith and the Church have taught the Hemispheric Geography Model rather than the fringe Limited Geography Model.

The numerous problems that a Limited Geography Model (BOM took place in a small section of either Central or South America) creates:

Mormon apologists are currently warring with each other over hemispheric vs. limited geography. Limited geography apologists cannot even agree on the location or even its compass direction. Here are just a few examples of the different proposed Limited Geography Maps, just to illustrate the lack of consensus among “Limited Geography” apologists:

“Some parallels”? FairMormon is willing to concede only that 34 parallels is “some parallels”? It’s worth reviewing the parallels again for the reader to decide for themselves if it’s only just “some parallels”:

	View of the Hebrews Online Source	Book of Mormon Online Source
Published	1823, first edition 1825, second edition	1830, first edition
Location	Vermont Poultney, Rutland County Note: Oliver Cowdery, one of the Book of Mormon witnesses, lived in Poultney when "View of the Hebrews" was published.	Vermont Sharon, Windsor County Note: Windsor County is adjacent to Rutland County.
Destruction of Jerusalem
Source: B.H. Roberts, Sudies of the Book of Mormon, p.240-242,324-344

Notice that FairMormon does not dispute the above parallels and even goes further by admitting that the parallels have validity if “one applied a hemispheric geography model to the Book of Mormon.” Never mind that the Church and its “prophets, seers, and revelators” have taught the hemispheric geography model of the Book of Mormon its entire existence.

Think about FairMormon’s logic here for a moment. It presumes that if the Book of Mormon doesn’t mention, include, or align exactly with everything found in View of the Hebrews, then there must not be any real relationship between the two books. This is absurd nonsense. There are always “unparrallels” between any two books in the world – unless one was copied verbatim from the other.

The evidence does not support that Joseph & Co. copied everything from one single source. The evidence supports that Joseph & Co. borrowed a few things here and a few things there. Joseph & Co. borrowed the story of the Tree of Life in Lehi’s Dream, for example, from Joseph’s father’s 1811 dream. They borrowed from View of the Hebrews as evident from the above 34 parallels. They borrowed from the Late War. They borrowed from early 19th century Methodist evangelical camp meetings and the Second Great Awakening in Joseph’s “burnt over district” backyard. They borrowed from anti-Masonic sentiments of Joseph’s time. They borrowed from First Napoleon. They borrowed from the 1769 King James Version Bible (including its errors and italics). They borrowed from other papyri to fill in the blanks in the damaged Facsimiles. They borrowed from Philosophy of a Future State. They borrowed from the Masonic rituals in the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge for the creation of the LDS Endowment ceremony a few weeks later. They borrowed from many different sources.

Not only does FairMormon not dispute the above-mentioned B.H. Roberts parallels, but FairMormon attempts to dismiss and diminish by hand-waving them away by pointing to their unsupported “Limited Geography” theory, which they call “current scholarship.” There is no overall consensus. Nor is there any non-Mormon/BYU peer-reviewed data. Until unofficial Mormon apologists can actually agree on a location and produce data and evidence that they can present in a non-Mormon journal for peer-review by non-biased independent archaeologists and scientists, there is nothing “scholarly” about their unsupported hypothesis.

LDS historian, scholar, and General Authority B.H. Roberts read the View of the Hebrews. He researched it inside and out. Elder B.H. Roberts disagrees with FairMormon’s assessment as the parallels to the Book of Mormon led Elder Roberts to the following conclusion:

“Did Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph’s story of the Book of Mormon origins.”
– B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, p.240

Elder B.H. Robert’s private assessment (it was an internal report meant only for the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve) of the evidence of the View of the Hebrews against the Book of Mormon, which includes the numerous parallels and the fact that Oliver Cowdery was a member of the View of the Hebrews author’s congregation, made Roberts come to a very different conclusion than FairMormon: "the cumulative force of the evidence [of the View of the Hebrews] is a 'serious menace to Joseph’s story of the Book of Mormon origins'."

Rather than directly respond to each one of the 34 parallels between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon as well as Oliver Cowdery’s direct connection to his pastor, author Ethan Smith, FairMormon attempts to distract and divert from the real issue by claiming “there are a significant number of differences between the two books” while ignoring that there are a significant number of similarities between the two books. FairMormon also states, “many points that Ethan Smith thought were important are not mentioned at all in the Book of Mormon” while failing to mention that many points in the book that Ethan Smith thought were important are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

We know that Joseph Smith knew about and was familiar with View of the Hebrews. We know Joseph knew about the book because he mentioned and quoted from View of the Hebrews in his Times and Seasons newspaper:

Here are screenshots of the Times and Seasons newspaper with the View of Hebrews content. You can see for yourself on BYU's website here. Volume 3. No. 15. "From Priest's American Antiquities."

FairMormon has failed to directly respond to the problem of Oliver Cowdery’s own pastor being the author of the View of the Hebrews. FairMormon has failed to directly answer why a book, that has as many as 34 parallels to the Book of Mormon and which greatly troubled LDS scholar and General Authority B.H. Roberts, is nonsense and has zero influence on the Book of Mormon - despite all the evidence given to the contrary.

Precisely. The first edition of the Book of Mormon in particular espoused a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. This view was later revised as Joseph's doctrinal teachings evolved.

“In this edition numerous corrections were made to the text of the 1830 (first) edition to bring it back to the reading in the original and printer's manuscripts.”

This is deceptive. Some quick background on the Book of Mormon manuscripts from LDS scholar Royal Skousen:

The printed versions of the Book of Mormon derive from two manuscripts. The first, called the original manuscript (O), was written by at least three scribes as Joseph Smith translated and dictated. The most important scribe was Oliver Cowdery. This manuscript was begun no later than April 1829 and finished in June 1829.

A copy of the original was then made by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes. This copy is called the printer's manuscript (P), since it was the one normally used to set the type for the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon. It was begun in July 1829 and finished early in 1830.

The printer's manuscript is not an exact copy of the original manuscript. There are on the average three changes per original manuscript page. These changes appear to be natural scribal errors; there is little or no evidence of conscious editing. Most of the changes are minor, and about one in five produce a discernible difference in meaning. Because they were all relatively minor, most of the errors thus introduced into the text have remained in the printed editions of the Book of Mormon and have not been detected and corrected except by reference to the original manuscript. About twenty of these errors were corrected in the 1981 edition.

The compositor for the 1830 edition added punctuation, paragraphing, and other printing marks to about one-third of the pages of the printer's manuscript. These same marks appear on one fragment of the original, indicating that it was used at least once in typesetting the 1830 edition.

In preparation for the second (1837) edition, hundreds of grammatical changes and a few textual emendations were made in P [Printer’s Manuscript].

Here’s FairMormon’s chart again showing the Original Manuscript, Printer’s Manuscript, 1830 edition, and 1837 edition:

Click on graphic to expand:

Notice the strikeouts and in the Printer’s Manuscript. These strikeouts and were added by Joseph in 1837 in preparation of the 1837 edition. FairMormon acknowledges this on the bottom of the chart.

Therefore, FairMormon’s “in this edition numerous corrections were made to the text of the 1830 (first) edition to bring it back to the reading in the original and printer's manuscripts” wording and claim is deceptive and false. It was not bringing it “back to the reading” of anything. The new changes were struck out and inserted into the Printer’s Manuscript in 1837 by Joseph Smith. It was not bringing it “back to the reading in the original and printer’s manuscripts.” It was not referring to any original wording made before and for the 1830 edition.

“These changes are clarifications that the passages are speaking of Jesus, not God the Father. The terms ‘God,’ ‘Everlasting God,’ and ‘Eternal Father’ are ambiguous since they could properly refer to either the Father or the Son.”

This is not how Joseph and the early Saints interpreted it. This is FairMormon applying current 21st century LDS doctrine and teachings of the Godhead to a book that held and still holds Trinitarian teachings of God; views that Joseph clearly expressed in the Book of Mormon, in his “inspired” translation of the Bible as well as what he wrote and taught in the Lectures on Faith.

“The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel.”

This is a strawman fallacy. I never made the claim that the Book of Mormon teaches or does not teach that “Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel.”

Since we’re on this topic, here’s what I stated in the CES Letter:

As a believing Mormon, I tried to rationalize some of the craziness by saying, “Oh, this is in the crazy Old Testament when the Law of Moses was in force. Christ came and fulfilled the Law of Moses.”

The problem with this is that the crazy god of the Old Testament was Jehovah. Who’s Jehovah? The premortal Jesus Christ. So, Christ is the crazy god of the Old Testament. The Christ of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament are light years different. Again, I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well.

"This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts."

Although one of the passages cited by FairMormon (1 Nephi 19:10) supports that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament (a position which with I have never disagreed), that passage neither supports nor detracts from a Trinitarian position in the original Book of Mormon.

The other three passages cited by FairMormon, (Mosiah 7:27, Mosiah 16:15, and Alma 11:38-39), on the other hand, simply confirm that the original Book of Mormon (and to a lesser extent the existing Book of Mormon) is Trinitarian. A plausible explanation for the fact that these versus remain unchanged today is simply that perhaps they were missed by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery during the preparation of the 1837 edition.

Perhaps the most damning portion of FairMormon’s response on this matter is what FairMormon didn’t say. The strongest evidence that the original Book of Mormon is not Trinitarian would be language clearly delineating God the Father from Christ the Son. But there is no such language in the original Book of Mormon. And there is plenty of language in the original, along with Joseph Smith’s contemporaneous teachings and writings, that supports a Trinitarian view.

The significance of this issue cannot be understated. Aside from the Book of Abraham, this one issue perhaps comes as close to being a “silver bullet” as any other. Until the late 1830s, Joseph Smith taught for years that God the Father and the Son were one being. There is no contemporaneous evidence to the contrary, and there is overwhelming evidence in support of this fact.

Of course, Trinitarianism is utterly at odds with the official 1838 account of the First Vision and with the Church’s current teachings today. Joseph’s early teachings on Trinitarianism and the official First Vision account cannot both be true. Either Joseph was visited by God the Father and the Son as separate beings in 1820 or he wasn’t. Joseph’s Trinitarian teachings severely (and, for many, completely) undermine Joseph’s credibility as a prophet.

Why did FairMormon delete their above original response? Note that, unlike FairMormon’s above strong denial which they deleted, FairMormon’s new response does not deny that Joseph held a Trinitarian theology during the Book of Mormon translation and publication.

The evidence is in the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s own contemporaneous writings, including the Lectures on Faith. Joseph even changed the Bible in his revision to ensure it did not read that God and Jesus were separate beings. FairMormon not only fails to address this, but they fail to directly respond to the evidence I presented in the CES Letter of Trinitarian verses in the Book of Mormon, some of which were updated in 1837 to better reflect Joseph’s evolved theology that Mary was not the mother of God and that the lamb of God was not the everlasting god and that the lamb of God was not the Eternal Father.

Here is some additional evidence of Joseph’s early theology holding a Trinitarian view:

Luke 10:22 KJV reads:

“…no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

This verse can be construed as slightly ambiguous. It could be argued, although weakly, considering what the rest of the Bible contains, that it means God and Jesus are two separate and individual beings. So, ironically, Joseph – in his monotheistic framework – changed it to clarify that God and Jesus are one and the same. It becomes verse 23 in the Joseph Smith Inspired Translation of the bible:

“…that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.” (Emphasis added) – JST Luke 10:23

If Joseph already thought that God and Jesus were two separate beings with bodies, why did he alter or correct a Bible verse that could have been taken that way and rewrite it to unmistakably read that they are definitely one and the same being? Why did Joseph make this change a decade after supposedly seeing that the Son was not the Father and the Father was not the Son in the sacred grove in 1820?

Additionally, the Lectures on Faith (1834) include references to God as a spirit alone:

“There are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things...They are the Father and the Son – the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle..." (Emphasis added)

Why is Joseph saying that the Father is a “personage of spirit” while saying the Son is a “personage of “tabernacle” in 1834? If Joseph saw that they were both personages of “tabernacle” 14 years earlier in 1820 in the sacred grove?

Elsewhere in the lectures (Lectures on Faith), God is referred to as an omnipresent spirit which means He dwells everywhere at once, and that is yet another traditional monotheistic Christian concept. The ‘holy spirit’ by the way, is the ‘mind of God’ in these lectures and is nowhere referred to as a ‘personage’ of spirit. Most Mormons have no idea the concept of the Holy Ghost being a personage of spirit didn’t actually become formal doctrine until the twentieth century.” – Sunstone, July/August 1980, p. 24-33

FairMormon has failed to respond directly to the evidence provided of Trinitarian verses in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and the Lectures on Faith. When one reads the multiple First Vision accounts written by Joseph, they can see that the accounts gradually evolve into polytheism by the official 1842 account.

I’m going to let Brother Jake quickly wrap up the Book of Mormon: