The Cumulative Case Against the Book of Mormon

I recently came across an article titled, Defending the Faith: Creating a Cumulative Case for the Book of Mormon, written by Daniel Peterson. It is an attempt to respond to critics who argue that the Book of Mormon is not genuine.

Let me make something clear, I am not anti-Mormon. Mormons are lovely people and I do not feel any animosity toward them. While as a Christian I disagree with their theology, the aim of this post is more to interact with Peterson’s article.

He begins by looking at the Mormon emphasis of faith over evidence. I find that interesting as early Mormon preachers used the Book of Mormon as evidence in convincing people to leave traditional Christianity for this restorationist movement. Also, notice that the Book of Mormon begins with the testimony of witnesses as evidence that the Book of Mormon was true.

Peterson cites a number of New Testament passages to support the idea of faith over evidence. What he left out was the Gospel John, where instead of just expecting people to just believe his word, Jesus provides seven signs. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul points people to the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus for those who doubt.

Having backed off on the importance of evidence, he attempts to set forth some evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon’s impressive parallels to the ancient Near East, the humanly inexplicable peculiarities of its English translation-language, its subtle complexity, its seeming ties to Preclassic Mesoamerica, the astonishing speed of its dictation, the solid statistical evidence that it was written by multiple authors — these are individual elements of what I personally judge to be a very substantial cumulative case.

A few responses come to mind. The parallels to the ancient Near East come from the Book of Mormon’s frequent borrowing of the King James Bible (often word for word). I am unfamiliar with the translation-language argument, so I will leave that one alone. I do not know anyone who has read the Book of Mormon and has described it as having “subtle complexity.” It will never win any awards for its literary quality. The Mesoamerican ties are questionable as Mormons are not even agreed as to which America the events described took place. The multiple authors can be explained by the use of multiple sources, which most Mormon critics agree on.

Peterson sees this as a substantial case. Even if my responses are baseless (which I don’t think they are), there is the problem of the cumulative case against the Book of Mormon. What about the plagiarism of the King James Bible? What about the lack of archaeology? What about the scholarly consensus that there was never a language known as “reformed Egyptian”? What about the lack of genetic evidence for a Hebrew origin for Native Americans? What about the absence of the golden plates? What about the need to edit the Book of Mormon over the years?

I share all this as one who is interested in the nature of evidence. While Peterson is likely a faithful Mormon, his attempt at putting forth evidence for the Book of Mormon is less than convincing.

Liked it? Take a second to support Stephen Bedard on Patreon!