Book of Mormon-1-

What is the the Book of MormonEdit

main article: About the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ (click to read more), a powerful testimony of the life, purpose and mission of the saviour. Nobody can ever change that. It is a true testimony to show that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God, he accomplished a miracle by translating it and no matter what people say that can never be disproved.

Even if it were not to be a literal translation, the spiritual powerful message of the Book on its own is enough to prove that it is of a divine inspiration and origin. It is no lie, hoax, fraud or scam. It is the word and work of the lord as a second witness that he lives, and that his word and message continues in the world today.

So did Joseph Smith pull it off on his own?Edit

For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”
  • There is no doubt logically that the Book of Mormon was beyond anything Joseph Smith could potentially fabricate in a 2 month period. It has an impressive literary, theological, narrative and well written contents which are beyond his education, intelligence and imagination. Joseph Smith was not an educated man at the time the Book appeared. We need to consider this point carefully, most people of the modern day who are more educated than Joseph Smith was would be incapable of producing such a text out of thin air. What is more significant to this point is that Joseph Smith lived in a rural 1800's settlement, he had no internet to support him. Yet according to some people, he was still able to fabricate a book of such a quality and make it seem convincing that it was from God and another testament of Jesus Christ? How often does this happen? Nobody has ever managed to do so in similar circumstances in History. The truth being he simply was not smart enough, in our modern circumstances it would take a genius to even think of repeating such an achievement. Having read copies of Smith's personal diaries, Smith's literary style was flawed with numerous grammatical and spelling errors, great backup to support a principle that he conned millions with a convincing book, isnt it?
When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. .?. . When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, "Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?" When I answered, "Yes," he replied, "Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived." He had such a limited knowledge of history at the time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls
—Emma Hale Smith, Quote
  • According to accounts, if he fabricated it. Smith done it on his own. If he was scamming, he certainly was by himself. Everyone who aided Smith such as; Emma Hale, Cowdrey, Harris, the Whitmers, etc. Were honest in believing Smith's claims from the very beginning. There is no evidence in existence Smith ever told any of them, "its a lie". Their accounts of him dictacting the translation to them would be somewhat contrary then if so.
  • Emma Hale's quotation demonstrates how Smith was unskilled in History and literacy. Despite that, how did Smith know if she'd spelt something wrong? If his face were stuffed in a hat, then certainly he would have no idea what she was writing then would he?
  • If Joseph Smith's face were stuffed in a hat in front of the scribe, certainly he wasnt sitting reading out of a bible either (for those who criticize the Isaiah verses). If he were doing so, then they would never believe the authenicity of his claims. If he did "read out of a bible", then why even bother with the seer stone in the hat business to his companions? This would mean he either was true in his claims or was attempting to be convincing. If he were attempting to be convincing therefore clearly he would then be on the lie by himself but clearly, nobody "was in the scam with him". Smith was on his own, consider the following statements below:
I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.
—Emma Hale Smith, Quote
He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.
—Emma Hale Smith, Quote
My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.
—Emma Hale Smith, Quote
The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.
—Emma Hale Smith, Quote

So Emma Smith describes a set of plates? Now, there is no disagreement with Scholars that there were "plates", it is just the authencity which is challenged (people say Smith manufactured fake ones). Why would he do that? If the people he were working with "were in the scam" with him, surely he would need not to make fake plates? Again, he was either trying to convince them or true in his claims. The main point being, Joseph Smith had absolutely no help in creating the Book of Mormon at all. Those who followed him, blatantly believed him.

Therefore this, limits the Book of Mormon right down to Smith on his own. Combine this with his lack of education and the quality of the Book of Mormon text, and it becomes somewhat unusual that Smith managed it doesnt it? What are these critics trying to tell you? it doesnt add up does it? The critical theories are full of contradictions!


The three witnesses and the eight witnesses are the men who saw, handled and truly testified of the Golden Plates which were used to testify of the Book of Mormon. Their testimonies are secure, honest and reliable.[6][7].

  • Bare the simple fact in mind before moving onto this part, none of the witnesses ever denied their testimony, ever. Despite how far critics may try and overexaggerate quotations to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find the tiniest indirect bit of doubt surrounding it. Nonetheless, despite some of them falling out with the church (which would have certainly lead them to deny their testimony if it were a lie), they continued onwards.
  • To work their way round this, critics claim "Smith Hypnotized them". Of course this is fundamentally ridiclous. Again, we question Smith's ability to do such. Joseph Smith clearly did not have an advanced knowledge of psycology or hypnosis at all to have been able to do so, and I'm sure that if anyone could "hypnotize" people into seeing a set of Golden Plates, it would be happening a lot more.
  • There is no evidence he hypnotized them, but critics claim there is by speculating that the witnesses saw the plates "only in visions". This is often backed up by Harris quotation:
I saw them with a spiritual eye
—Martin Harris, Quote
  • Though despite this, other statements contradict:
In the Investigator, No. 12, Dec. 11, I published, by way of caution, a letter of Oliver H.P. Cowdry, in answer to my letter to Joseph Smith, Jun. Martin Harris, and David Whitmore—the believers in said bible of gold plates—which they affirm they have miraculously, or supernaturally beheld. I sought for evidences, and such as could not be disputed, of the existence of this bible of golden plates. But the answer was—the world must take their words for its existence; and that the book would appear this month
—Early anti-mormon source
He told all about the gold plates, Angels, Spirits, and Jo Smith.—He had seen and handled them all, by the power of God
—Quote, Early anti-mormon source
  • So he either handlded them or he didnt? Does this mean Harris is a liar? It seems not. Harris testified that what he saw was not an illusion and not a "vision":
Gentlemen, do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Are your eyes playing a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates
—Martin Harris, Quote
  • Clearly when saying "spiritual" what was said was taken out of context, wildly. Consider the following:
Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time
—David Whitmer, Quote
  • When saying "spiritual" they clearly meant that they felt the spirit strongly when seeing what they saw, they basically mean they felt the power of God beyond their basic natures. If we were to see something amazing, and we described the experience as "It was a spiritual sight" does that mean its not real?.
  • When Whitmer was accused of "delusion" he responded with this:
How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height—a little over six feet—and said, in solemn and impressive tones: ‘No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak
—David Whitmer, Quote
  • So were the witnesses deluded? Did they only see the plates in visions? Of course not! There is not enough evidence to say they "imagined" what they saw, and if we then again question Smith's ability to Hyponotize (any evidence of that despite the word "spiritual" being used a couple of times in descriptions?)

Consistency in descriptionsEdit

  • If it were only a vision they saw them in, then how comes the witnesses were all able to see the plates and describe them in a consistent tone. Consider the quotations below, if it "were a vision" then surely there would be wild differences in the hallucinations each one had of the plates:

Rings on the platesEdit

  • Looking at the descriptions of the rings binding the plates is essential. Because the figure surrounding this lies essentially on a numerical basis, the possibility of each one having a vision where the plates had the same numerical value of binding rings is virtually impossible! Source for descriptions: [8]
  • ""[T]hey were fastened with rings thus [a sketch shows a ring in the shape of a capital D with six lines drawn through the straight side of the letter to represent the leaves of the record]."- Whitmer
  • "They were bound together in the shape of a book by three gold rings."- Whitmer
  • "bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole"- Joseph Smith.
  • "volume of them were bound together like the leaves of a book, and fastened at one edge with three rings running through the whole"- Pratt
  • "put together with three rings, running through the whole" - W. I. Appleby

Each account provides an identical description. There are no wild inconsistencies or variations. How could that be a vision?

  • The description depends on numerical judgement. Understand that the reason I used "numerical" comparisons is because if it is a small number and has a wild variation on such a simple matter (such as binding rings), you know its questionable.
  • Bare in mind, Modern ring binders did not exist until 1854. But ones dating from around 600BC have been discovered. Therefore it may be difficult for an individual to imagine and hallucinate something that they have never had in their minds before, (delusions and hallucinations play on non-concsious every day subjects). Thus this further strengthens the authencity of the argument that their testimonies were true.


  1. [Emma Smith to Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856," Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454]
  2. [1]
  3. [2]
  4. [3]
  5. [4]
  6. [Letter of David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalf, March 1887, cit. Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast (Malad, Idaho, 1888), 74; cited in Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981]
  7. [Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses]
  8. [5]

Essential links to learn moreEdit

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.