Word Change in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon

From an article in the Salt Lake Tribune

The book's current introduction, added by the late LDS apostle, Bruce R. McConkie in 1981, includes this statement: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."
The new version, seen first in Doubleday's revised edition, reads, "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
LDS leaders instructed Doubleday to make the change, said senior editor Andrew Corbin, so it "would be in accordance with future editions the church is printing.

I don't mean to brag, but "I told you so". In a post dated 4/10/2007 on a discussion board on the website newordermormon.org , I said:

Do you think they will change the introduction to the Book of Mormon? The sentence that says "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." With all we know now about Linguistics, Archaeology, Anthropology and now DNA evidence.

Why the heck not? The BoM has gone through so many changes, it wouldn't be all that shocking, especially since it isn't the actual text itself, it is just the introduction page.

I predict that new editions of the BoM will have this sentence either omitted or altered in some way.

To which someone replied "I imagine the "principal ancestors of the American Indians" will be replaced with something like "among the ancestors" in a future edition of the Book of Mormon."

That was 7 months ago and it is almost scary that it happend exactly word-for-word. The only discussion on the board was when this change would take place. Some believed that it wouldn't happen for years as the older generation are still around.

I think in many ways, it is a positive step in the right direction because here you have an organization that is finally starting to admit that it was incorrect about certain assumptions. It is the first step in admitting that it is not a literal history.

Some have suggested that both the Lamanites and the Nephites were destroyed a long time ago. The problem with that theory is that it contradicts scripture.

Enos 1:12-18
"12 And it came to pass that after I had prayed and labored with all diligence, the Lord said unto me: I will grant unto thee according to thy desires, because of thy faith.

13 And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him?that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation?

14 For at the present our strugglings were vain in restoring them to the true faith. And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers.

15 Wherefore, I knowing that the Lord God was able to preserve our records, I cried unto him continually, for he had said unto me: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it.

16 And I had faith, and I did cry unto God that he would preserve the records; and he covenanted with me that he would bring them forth unto the Lamanites in his own due time.

17 And I, Enos, knew it would be according to the covenant which he had made; wherefore my soul did rest.

18 And the Lord said unto me: Thy fathers have also required of me this thing; and it shall be done unto them according to their faith; for their faith was like unto thine."

Not to mention that the Doctrine and Covenants specifically mentions the Lamanites by name repeatedly:

D&C 32: 2
"And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall ago with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites."

D&C 54: 8
"And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites."

D&C 28: 8-9, 14
"8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.
9 And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites."

There is no doubt that it was widely accepted, publicized and taught that the Native Americans were Lamanites. The idea that the Lamanites might not be all Native Americans is a dramatic change in Mormon theology.

Disillusioned Mormon

Read more!

LDS Scholars find parallels between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica

What does it mean when LDS scholars find circumstantial parallels between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica? For example, as John L. Sorenson points out in his book entitled An ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, he says:

we have no reason to expect scholars to find traces of Egyptian speech in the New World...But as we have seen , the glyphic writing...in...Mesoamerica is identical in principle to Egyptian writing.

Identical in principal to Egyptian writing? Identical in what way? If we compared the Mesoamerican glyphic writing to other scripts besides Egyptian, like Chinese for example, could we find the same similarities?

Other circumstantial parallels

Another parallel that most LDS scholars like to bring up is Quetzalcoatl. Most of the parallels between Jesus and Quetzalcoatl are circumstantial as well. I will talk into more detail about my findings of Quetzalcoatl and how I don't think it is the same person as described in the Book of Mormon in a later post.

Another perfect example of circumstantial parallels is the discovery of temples in Mesoamerica. The Book of Mormon speaks of temples, but none of the Mayan or Aztec temples are closely related to what is described in the Book of Mormon. They might find a temple that was destroyed around the birth of Christ, like the one in Chiapa de Corzo, however when you take a closer look, there is no way it could be a Nephite City because the city was first occupied in 1,400 B.C. and the writing script they used in that temple was based on a late Olmec script.

They also say that an Elephant as described in the Book of Mormon could be a Mammoth as found in Mesoamerica. However, the Mammoth became extinct in that region around 10,000 B.C.

They will mention that the Book of Mormon describes secret societies, and there is evidence to support secret societies within the Aztecs called the "nahualistas". I would venture out to say that you could find secret societies in just about ANY society.

New World Order Archaeological Foundation

It got me thinking: The LDS church has spent millions of dollars funded through BYU and the NWAF as well as countless man-hours searching through archaeological digs trying to find any evidence to support the Book of Mormon, but the best they can come up with is a few circumstantial parallels.

What about control groups?

It makes me wonder if the only reason that LDS scholars find parallels from the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica is because that is the only place they look for them. In other words, to find out just how relevant and meaningful those parallels are, we could have a couple of "control groups". We would take a couple of completely unrelated cultures, say Chinese and Africans for example. We would then send out archaeologists and anthropologists to specifically search and look for ancient literary forms, ancient names, records made on tablets, any Hebrew origins, metal swords and overall ancient cultures of these areas. Their specific goal is to search for anything that could be considered evidence that would support the Book of Mormon.

We would then look at the data after years of research and determine if Mesoamerica has substantially more, less, or an equal number of parallels than the other "control groups" with the Book of Mormon culture. If the other cultures have equal or more parallels between them and the Book of Mormon, it would seriously question just how meaningful the parallels are between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. It would also give us an idea of how many "coincidental" parallels one could expect when trying to place the Book of Mormon with ANY culture.

It is unlikely such a study will ever be done

Such "control" studies have not been performed because obviously such an undertaking would require a lot of money, and most importantly, there is no incentive for anyone to take on such a huge task. The LDS church has a vested interest in Mesoamerica, but would have absolutely no interest in looking at other cultures. Not only that, but the LDS church has been actively looking since the 1950's. It is doubtful that anyone would spend that kind of manpower and money just to prove a point.

Parallels Between Other Cultures and the Book of Mormon

Regardless of the fact that this kind of study will never be done, I can already see more parallels between Chinese and African cultures and the Book of Mormon simply with what we know already.

We know that the Chinese started using cast Iron during the Zhou Dynasty of the 6th century B.C. The Native Americans didn't use metal until 600 A.D. and only gold and silver for artwork. pre-Colombian Native Americans didn't use metal weapons.

The word "Mormon" is used in the ancient Chinese language for various meanings (pronounced mo-man) . There could be other similar names to ancient Chinese words. There aren't any names in the Book of Mormon that are similar at all to any Native American script.

There are some African tribes of Hebrew origin, whereas there is not a single Native American to be found of Middle Eastern decent.

What this demonstrates to me is that one could find parallels between the Book of Mormon and ANY diverse culture. In fact, I see more parallels between Chinese and African cultures than any Native American culture. It just demonstrates to me how readily parallels occur strictly by chance alone.

Skeptical Mormon. Read more!

New Anti-Mormon video is distributed

Search for the Truth

This video entitled "Search for the truth" was distributed to thousands of members of the church for free. Although I was not selected to receive the DVD, anyone can watch it on the Internet. Overall, I thought it was pretty boring but it did have some good points as to why I no longer believe in the Mormon church. The part about the Book of Abraham was the most important part for me, because when I learned about the Book of Abraham, that is when I completely lost faith in the Mormon Church. I will discuss my discoveries on the Book of Abraham at a later time. Just like most "Anti-Mormon" productions made by evangelicals, I found about 15 mins worth of substantial information in a 1:30 hour presentation. It was a typical over-impassioned film, but it did have some worthwile and accurate information, even if it was watered down at times.

Evangelicals and Hypocrisy

I find it fascinating that Evangelicals are quick to point to DNA and archaeology to disprove the Book of Mormon, yet they fail to recognize that the same science disproves many aspects of the Bible as well. DNA disproves creationism for one, and there is no scientific evidence to back up the story of Noah's ark. There is some evidence to support some events in the Bible, but there is also evidence to contradict other events and stories. In the video, there was a part where someone was saying "scientists are not debating the origin of the Native Americans". However, there is also no debate in the scientific community on the origin of man either. Scientists have used DNA evidence to link Homo sapiens to the Homo heidelbergensis and the Homo ecrectus species. So, if we can apply DNA evidence to prove that Native Americans are from North Eastern Asia and not Israel as the Book of Mormon claims, we can use the same DNA evidence to prove that men came from apes and not Adam and Eve. My point is if you discredit DNA evidence when it disproves the Bible, you have to discredit it completely.

Locations as Evidence for the Bible?

It is interesting that people would point out that the locations mentioned in the Bible exist and therefore that proves that it is a true book. However, the cities mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants exist. I can go to Independence, Missouri, Carthage, IL or Palmyra, NY and see evidence that Joseph Smith existed. I can look at archaeological evidence to support that Joseph Smith was a real person and that the people groups that are mentioned existed. Does that mean that the Doctrine and Covenants is a true book?

Mormons and Hypocrisy

On the flip side, I am also amazed at the reaction of church members. Most members of the church are repulsed by the idea of someone sending them a video that questions their faith and is trying to ram their beliefs down their throats to get them to change religions. Then, I laugh because the LDS church is doing the exact same thing, it looks like people don't like the taste of their own medicine.

I know all about what LDS missionaries do, because I was one. As a missionary, I was trained to destroy other people's faith in their religion. We would send videos along with other medias, but the point is that now that the shoe is on the other foot, LDS members need to understand why other people are mad when we try to shove our beliefs down other people's throats.

Everyone is a Hypocrite

Evangelicals like to use science to disprove Mormonism, but when the same science disproves the bible, suddenly science isn't reliable. Mormons like to drop by unannounced and show people videos that they didn't ask for, but get bent out of shape if someone else does the same thing to them. I suppose it is just part of human nature to only see what we want to see. I am sure I do the same thing. As for the quality of the video, I have seen other videos that are better.

Church Response to the video

LDS apologists offer some insight. This is the part where I lose faith in Mormonsim. LDS apologists can't refute what is said on the video, all they can do is attack the source. The worst is the part where they admit that the Book of Abraham is a hoax and the church has known it since 1967.

The official church response is very angry and upset about the video. Once again, they can't refute any of the facts on the video, they can only attack the source of the video. "one religious group chooses to target another with a DVD full of distortions of its doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of the producers." Pot, meet Kettle. You want to talk about a group that distorts LDS doctrine and church history, look in the mirror. I just mentioned the Book of Abraham and how the LDS church has known since 1967 that it was a hoax, but yet the church hides and distorts that fact from the general church population. The Book of Abraham is still an officially cannonized scripture.

By their own words, a religious group that is full of distortions of the LDS doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of that group, we should not trust anything said by that religious group. Nobody has distorted and misrepresented LDS history and doctrine like the LDS church.

Skeptical Mormon
Read more!

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

In my previous posts, I talked about the problems facing the geography of the Book of Mormon. The traditional view regarding the geography of the Book of Mormon is the view that was widely accepted by Joseph Smith, other prophets and early members of the church in general. The traditional view was that the geography for the Book of Mormon included the entire North and South American continents. However, more and more LDS scholars are taking a more non-traditional view of the Book of Mormon geography, known as a "limited Geography theory", or in other words Joseph Smith was incorrect in his teachings that the Book of Mormon covered the entire Continent. Instead, most LDS scholars today insist the Book of Mormon is a story of a small group of people that had very little impact on the overall society. The reason is current LDS scholars take this view is because it is clear that the civilizations that are found in North, Central and South America are in no way similar at all with the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.

Continual Shrinking of Book of Mormon Geography

Sometime in the 1940's, the first LDS scholars came up with the idea that the geography of the Book of Mormon was not the entire North and South American continent, but was in fact limited to the southern Mexico and Central American area. This view was not well accepted at first, particularly since it contradicted Joseph Smith and his claims about locating the remains of Zelph, the location of the hill Cumorah, and statements made by Smith and other early prophets. None the less, it has since proven to be the most widely popular and publicized theory.



The reason LDS scholars believe that the Book of Mormon geography is located around Mesoamerica is because there were many civilizations that had great empires in that region during the same time period. So, it would make sense that if the vast empires that existed in the Book of Mormon, we could find some archaeological evidence to support it.

The New World Archaeological Foundation

In 1952, an LDS attorney named Thomas Ferguson approached the first presidency with an idea for the church to fund an archaeological dig in central America with the soul purpose of finding cities and/or artifacts that would support the Book of Mormon. The name of the organization that Ferguson established was The New World Archaeological Foundation. Although David O. Mckay(the prophet and president at the time) was skeptical at first, once Thomas Ferguson raised private funds to get the program started, the church stepped in and fully backed the program financially.

The New World Archaeological Foundation is funded by the church, but employs professional Archaeologists to manage the dig sites. It has since been re-structured and is now run through BYU, but it's purpose remains the same. Its sole purpose is finding locations and artifacts to support the Book of Mormon . Unfortunately, 55 years after it was founded, they have yet to find a single shred of physical evidence to support the Book of Mormon. In fact, in the quest to find evidence to support the Book of Mormon, LDS archaeologists and anthropologists have discovered quite the opposite. In my next posts, I will outline the different archaeological aspects of what is found in ancient America and how it differs with what is described in the Book of Mormon.

Skeptical Mormon Read more!

Great Lakes Limited Geography Theory

Most LDS scholars agree that the Book of Mormon lands are located somewhere around Mesoamerica. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, there are no specific cities found, only ideas of general regions and landscapes. There is also evidence of civilizations during the same time period, although the culture doesn't closely resemble the descriptions in the Book of Mormon. The other problem is that Joseph Smith said that he recieved the golden plates in upstate New York on a hill called hill Cumorah, which happens to be located just over a mile from where Joseph Smith lived in Palmyra, NY at the time. The hill Cumorah is the only official church location from the Book of Mormon.

This would lead me to believe that perhaps all the LDS scholars are looking in the wrong place. If Joseph Smith found the golden plates in upstate New York, it would make sense that other cities and locations are in that area, and not Mesoamerica. For example, I already discussed the difficulty with the '2 Cumorahs' theory, it contradicts what Joseph Smith said. This led me to look closer at the Great Lakes Geography theory. It would make more sense that the Book of Mormon lands would be within close proximity to upstate, NY where Joseph Smith said the golden plates were buried. Afterall, Joseph Smith always said there was only one Cumorah.

In my previous post, I talked about the difficulty that LDS scholars have had in finding physical locations for cities and geographic regions. Anytime anyone tries to place the Book of Mormon geography anywhere in the real world, they(LDS scholars) can't agree on it, they have to skew the descriptions in the Book of Mormon or stretch assumptions, and have to contradict what Joseph Smith and other prophets have said. Perhaps they are looking in the wrong place.

When you look at the area that surrounds Palmyra, NY, (click on the map to enlarge) you notice right away that there are 2 large bodies of water between a narrow neck of land that is only 30 miles wide. There is a land to the north (Canada) and a land to the south (USA). There is also a body of water to the north and the Atlantic Ocean is located in the Southeast. This geography model is known as the Great Lakes Limited geography theory. Although this theory is not very popular, I think it is the most relevant if we are to consider that Joseph Smith found the plates at the hill Cumorah.

A Bombshell!

The most fascinating thing I discovered was that the names of cities in USA and Canada are very similar to the names mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Below is the names of actual Cities that I found using Google Earth. These cities did not exist during pre-Colombian times because Native Americans in this area didn't practice the concept of owning land. However, the names of these cities existed during the time of Joesph Smith. (Click on the map to enlarge)

Now, compare the names of cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon below.
Did Joseph Smith simply copy city names from maps of his surrounding area? It is unlikely that he used maps as the sole source of city names. To the right, you can see Lehigh county was well established on an 1823 map of Pennsylvania. However, other cities were not established until decades later. However, those city names were definetly used by people that lived in those areas. So each of the cities mentioned above either existed on maps or by word of mouth in the 1820's. We can place the Book of Mormon city names on the physical map and consider the descriptions in the Book of Mormon to see if they are consistent.

Descriptions in the Book of Mormon

It seems reasonable that a New Yorker in the 1800's would consider "The land Northward" Canada. However, before we jump to any conclusions, lets look at all the facts. Let's first look at the Geography as described in the Book of Mormon and compare it with the area.

Narrow neck of Land

Alma 22:32
“...it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey...from the east to the west sea...there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.”

There is a narrow strip of land that is only 30 miles wide between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The lakes and the narrow strip border Canada.

Teancum vs. Tecumseh

The City Teancum in the Book of Mormon is described as being "in the borders by the seashore" Mormon 4:3.

The city Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada is located along the Canadian border by the seashore. (click on the map to enlarge)

Lamanite Cities

Jerusalem, Jacobugath and Kishkumen were Lamanite cities in the Book of Mormon. We can assume they were within reasonable proximity to each other. The city of Alma was named after Alma, who was a Lamanite high priest, but led an exodus of slaves out of bondage from the Lamanites. The Valley of Alma was the distance of an entire day's journey from the Lamanite cities. (Mosiah 24:20-21)

Jerusalem, OH, Jacobsburg, OH, and Kiskiminetas, PA are within close proximity to each other. Alma, WV is also located nearby. Notice there is a valley between the "Lamanite cities" and the city of Alma. (click on map to enlarge)

Land of Lehi-Nephi and Shilom vs. Lehigh County and Shiloh

In the Book of Mormon, The Land of Lehi-Nephi is described as being close to where Lehi and his family first arrived by boat onto the Americas. It is also safe to assume that in the Book of Mormon, Lehi-Nephi and Shilom were close to each other, because the fortified their walls at the same time. (Mosiah 9:8 ) It also mentions people looking for the land of Lehi-Nephi for 40 days and stumbling across a hill just north of Shilom.

Lehigh County, PA and Shiloh, NJ appear to be within reasonable distance from each other. (Click on Map to Enlarge) Lehigh County is also close to the Atlantic Ocean, a possible landing area of Lehi.

The Jaredite Nation

Ether 10:20-21
“…the place where the sea divides the land…they did preserve the land southward for a wilderness, to get game. And the whole face of the land northward was covered with inhabitants.”

So all the Jaredite cities are in the land Northward, above the East and Western Seas that divide the Northern Land and Southern Land that have the narrow neck of land between them.

Ramah, Moron and Ogath are Jaredite cities in the Book of Mormon, and Jaredite cities are all in the "land northward".

Rama, Morin and St. Agathe are cities found in Canada, or the "land northward" from the perspective of a New Yorker in the 1800's.
(click map to enlarge)

An Astonishing Coincidence?

A few years ago, John E. Clark put together an evaluation for the Limited Great Lakes setting. However, he had no mention whatsoever of the similar names, geography, and matching distances. All he says in his nearly 60 page report is that there is no way the Book of Mormon took place near the Great Lakes.


This quote says it all regarding his conclusion as to the Great Lakes as a setting for the Book of Mormon: "None of the geographical correlations is convincing"

It appears to me that by reading this evaluation that John Clark is trying his hardest to try to talk people out of investigating the Great Lakes region. Probably because as they do so, they will discover what I did. Similar names and geographic regions that match exactly with the Book of Mormon.

When I showed the similarity between Mormon cities and actual cities to a good friend of mine, he said that he doesn't believe Joseph Smith copied maps because it would have been TOO OBVIOUS. My friend argued that Joseph Smith would never do something that obvious because how could he think he could get away with it. But that makes you wonder why LDS scholars haven't been able to find a single location for any Book of Mormon city. They have been actively looking for over 50 years. They haven't found a single location, city or artifact that supports the Book of Mormon.

It is reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith used the Great Lakes region as the main source to the geography in the Book of Mormon. There are few contradictions within the Book of Mormon itself as to the geography. It isn't until you try to place it in the real world that you start to have problems.

For example, in the Book of Mormon, the Hill Cumorah is located in Ramah, which should be in the "Land Northward". However, the hill Cumorah in Palmyra, NY as shown in the photo to the left, is south of the Great lakes. The limited Great Lakes theory would still require 2 Cumorahs, contradicting What Joseph Smith said. Perhaps Joseph used the Great Lakes region to create the Book of Mormon, but had the idea of the Hemispheric model, or the traditional model in mind. The paradox facing Joseph Smith's story is that the location of the Hill Cumorah in upstate NY doesn't match any limited geography theory.

Why haven't LDS scholars found a single city or artifact to support the claims of the hisoricity of the Book of Mormon? I will talk about Archaeology and the Book of Mormon in my next blog.

Skeptical Mormon

Read more!