This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Some describe it as a dark feeling in the pit of the stomach. They read the scriptures and they come across something that doesn’t seem right. Maybe they tried to justify it but the feeling grew until they couldn’t ignore it. Often, this dissonance occurs when comparing the Book of Mormon to the Bible. Maybe the Book of Mormon doesn’t sound like the bible, or it teaches something that conflicts with the Bible. They don’t understand that these contradictions themselves are what help us see divinity in scripture.
We believe the Bible is true “as far as it is translated correctly.” Joseph Smith said: “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” But how can we tell what got messed up? By investigating what has been corrupted in the Bible, we can determine the truth about the Book of Mormon and address our dark feelings that make us doubt.
Context
The brain is very good at filling in empty gaps. When we draw a line of dots on a paper and then back up to the other side of the room, the dots appear as a solid line. That is because the brain takes evidence and draws the most reasonable conclusion automatically, and it appears to us as solid truth. We need to be able to recognize when our brain (and our heart) is jumping to conclusions.
Lost Ancient Context – Often, we don’t know important context of scripture because it has been lost. We forget that we are talking about some of the oldest writings in the world. They come from alien times with totally different cultures, different sensibilities, and different values. And yet bare human feelings often communicate through and touch our hearts or our logic. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” We can ll figure out what that means, yet it affects our feelings very differently today than it did back when it was written. It is important to recognize that emotional reactions to scripture do not always communicate through at the same time as logical information. We may feel something about a verse even though we don’t get the writer’s intellectual intent, and vice versa. So, when we get an emotional reaction, we shouldn’t just assume that this means we intellectually understand the author’s intent. Likewise, when a scripture doesn’t touch our hearts, we shouldn’t assume we didn’t understand what the verse is saying.
Look at the outrage over Nephi slaying Laban. Skeptics and Antimormons attach modern morality to the act and call it “murder.” They get very emotional about it. But were they there to see it? To me, it is evident Nephi acted in self-defense, but also consider that this happened many thousands of years ago. The culture was different, sensibilities were different, morals were different, laws were different, etc. We can only guess based on scraps of evidence about those people and the circumstances. A reader’s strong emotional reaction may be misguided even though they intellectually understand Nephi’s explanation for why we did it.
Antimormons go on to demand that every single moral standard and church policy today align with what we read in the scriptures from 5,000 years ago. Every single discrepancy is proof to them that it is wrong. But how can you judge anything about 5,000 years ago with such little information? Even in examples of more recent controversies–polygamy, priesthood restrictions, etc.–we don’t really have a grasp on the context of those events. I have yet to see a single skeptic address Brigham Young’s true reason for polygamy— to prevent moral degredation. Instead, skeptics think only about modern sensibilities, modern values, and modern circumstances. Skeptics just can’t accept unknown context.
Mistakes Or Missing Context? – Much of what skeptics claim is mistranslated in the Bible and Book of Mormon is just missing context. For example, skeptics say “prudent” in Isaiah 3:2 and 2 Nephi 13:2 should be “soothsayer.” But “prudent” was defined in Joseph Smith’s time as “foreseeing by instinct,” and derived from the word “provident,” which means to show forsight. Pretty much the same thing as “soothsayer.” Often, we can use research to fill in the missing context, but often we can’t because it is lost to history. We see it as a mistake, contradiction, or moral failure because we have only modern context to apply to it. Is scripture with so much missing context worthless? How can we trust the Bible at all?
Book of Mormon Restores Context – We take for granted how much context the Book of Mormon restores. The first time I studied the Book of Mormon, I remember thinking it was weird how much the Book of Mormon talks about baptism and Jesus when these things don’t come up in the Old Testament. But then I read scholarly studies and archeological reports about baptism among the Qumran people and other ancient peoples. I read ancient holy books that are not found in the Bible and discovered text that describes Jesus. Then, I considered that if the Pharisees were so contemptuous toward Jesus as to crucify him for no reason, why wouldn’t this same caste of aristocrats censor specific details of the Messiah out of biblical prophecies?
The Book of Mormon is a window to biblical times before the diaspora, before the massive alterations made to the Bible during the Babylonian period. This is a window all other biblical scholarship is missing. Scholars agree books in the Old Testament were altered significantly during the time it was in the hands of captive Israelites in Babylon. Many even say the books were first authored during Babylonian captivity. The books pulsate with Israeli nationalism, as the Israelites sought to differentiate themselves from their Babylonian overlords. Perhaps some of Israel’s ugly history got whitewashed. Perhaps some of their ancient victories got exaggerated. Perhaps some of the teachings got changed for political reasons. One can easily imagine why hyper-nationalistic Israelis would omit Zenos’s allegorical narrative of Israel falling into apostasy and requiring transplanting. Or… maybe nothing got corrupted in the text at all, who knows? Ancient Jewish scholars read between the lines and sought for inferences in every little word and letter that they could. Later, biblical scholars used a variety of critical analytical processes. But at some point there is no way to find information that is missing. We can only get so much right.
Book Of Mormon Was Carefully Preserved – The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is reliably preserved. It was written first-hand onto metal plates that don’t rust or corrode, and translated with direct heavenly aid into what we have today. The only problem with the Book of Mormon is much fewer people believe it than believe the Bible. So it is much harder to jump on the bandwagon and just accept it as truth. It wasn’t passed down through many hands over the years like the Bible was, so it is logical to suspect it is a modern creation. This difference alone leads many to have a hard time connecting the Book of Mormon with the Bible. To them, the Bible is a mystical book from ancient times with timeless wisdom. They have a tough time seeing the Book of Mormon and the Bible as the same kind of ancient literature delivered through the power of God for our modern times. But why shouldn’t we see them both in this same way?
The restored context in the Book of Mormon changes much of the meaning in the Bible, which is another reason mainstream Christian skeptics have a hard time accepting it. They have built up many assumptions over the years based on scant evidence–about child baptism, the trinity, grace, etc.–and it is hard for them to change or even accept that more evidence exists. The assertion that Jesus valued Native Americans and the American continent as another branch of Israel hit the Christian community like a ton of bricks. Another good example is the Book of Mormon’s alteration of Isaiah 9:1. Skeptics say the text’s alteration of “way of the sea” to “way of the Red Sea” is an error because the text is talking specifically about the Savior’s travel to Galilee. But in the Book of Mormon it speaks of the road that Israel took in their exodus from Egypt, and this turns out to be an alteration that makes more sense in the verse’s context. It clears up confusion.
The Bible started out very different then how we think of it today. The books in the Bible went through many thousands of years of apostasy, like some old forgotten relic sitting in a museum, enigmatic yet obviously important. Meaning became lost and forgotten. Well-intentioned, smart, and talented people may get a hold of it and restore some amount of meaning, but an object’s true meaning can never be known until the object is dusted off and placed in the hand of its maker and master.
It reminds me of a church video I saw as a kid. Like an old violin, many throw around the Bible like a child’s toy–saying it is just some old mystical book. No, it is much more than an old mystical book! Others treat the Bible like some holy relic sitting in a museum–no additional scripture is possible, only absolute literal meaning of what we read in English is allowed, etc. Who can see the Bible for what it is? Who can pick it up and orchestrate masterful music when the method for playing it has been long forgotten? The Book of Mormon and restored priesthood tells us the method. The Book of Mormon introduces the master’s hand. https://www.youtube.com/embed/sAovzddEfGI
Knowing In Your Heart – What about this dark feeling in your heart? The first time I read the Book of Mormon, the prophecy of Christopher Columbus sounded silly to me. Others I’ve talked to say Christopher Columbus was alright but there were other parts that sound silly. I suppose the Noah’s Ark story sounds silly as well, doesn’t it? Well, there are always going to be passages of scripture that you come across and think “there’s no way this really happened.” “Why would Nephi see Christopher Columbus?” Well, it turns out there is a very important reason why. The more you consider it, Columbus’s voyage was the fulfilling of biblical scripture and was integral to the Book of Mormon’s role. Why wouldn’t he have been told about it? After lots of research and patient pondering in the heart, my mind changed and now I don’t think it sounds silly. I simply needed to re-evaluate my perception of prophecy in general. I had been looking at it the wrong way.
Contradiction Strategy
Cognitive dissonance is the result of feelings of the heart not being in alignment with knowledge in the brain. Maybe we reason through the story and think there is no way Noah could have fit all those animals in a boat. But it is still an inspiring story, so we want to believe it. Or maybe a story makes sense but it doesn’t align with our heart (like Nephi slaying Laban). This contradiction of heart and mind can be solved with patient exploration, pragmatic faith, and persistent research. By “pragmatic faith,” I mean: if the results are good and have worked well for thousands and thousands of years, why change it? Everything in scripture has been very carefully considered and examined by many millions of people. The reason it has been passed down and beloved by so many is because it works. It is classic wisdom. Skeptics point to slavery, warfare, and superstition as bad fruits of scripture, but are those things the Bible promoted or were they just circumstances of the time?
It goes back to context. We need to get past the difference in context of today and ancient times. Skeptics toss away scripture like some old wives tale and embrace “science” and “modern thinking,” but isn’t it incredibly naive to toss away many thousands of years of leading human thought? Has this disdain for ancient wisdom really benefited society? Has that made skeptics better people? No, these skeptics just happen to live in a peaceful society so it is easy for them to condemn what people did in much more difficult circumstances. “Oh, I wouldn’t have slayed Laban, I would have given him a heartfelt explanation, shook his hand, and parted as friends!” Well, what if tribal warfare and bronze-age technology were a way of life for you? Would the Bible still have “toxic messages” for you?
Two Witnesses – The people in the Book of Mormon lived in very different circumstances than those in the Bible, yet they based their society on the same scripture, the books of Moses. They are like two branches diverging from the same tree, and we can learn a lot more about a tree if we examine two branches instead of one. Suddenly we can see how to glean wise principles in spite of different circumstances. Suddenly, a branch doesn’t need to be defined in rigid terms but general definitions; we need two examples instead of just one in order to define anything, don’t we? Otherwise we are just defining a single object, not a general definition. Likewise, it is impossible for us to define the principles of the Bible unless we have additional examples for different contexts. We can now understand why we don’t slay bullocks on an altar today yet we do keep the Sabbath day holy. We can identify the principles and discard temporary policies of the time.
Without this reference point, atrocities occur. The conquistadors used the battle of Jericho to justify their horrible atrocities of Native Americans. Someone who read the Book of Mormon would easily understand why that was a mistake. But if all you have is the Old Testament? It is easy to twist enigmatic text to fit your agenda.
The problem with additional scripture from a different age and place is it inevitably adds contradictions. Skeptics rage at every little contradiction between the Bible and Book of Mormon, but contradiction is the whole point! We want contradiction! From contradictions, we can see where the Bible is in error from mistranslation, and we can see how the gospel adapts in different contexts.
Skeptics use contradiction to deconstruct ideologies that compete with their own. They spot contradictions in everything. Everywhere you go, everything you do, there is always a contradiction and that makes everything you do wrong. There is really only two ways to go about this, after all: either all branches are exactly the same, or we learn the definition of what makes a branch and adapt to present circumstances. Skeptics ignore all context, pretend like everything is rigid–not allowed to change–and attack faith with the knife of contradiction:
“Agitation, whether spoken or written, generally focuses on one event, and one contradiction, and seeks to make a single idea powerfully clear to broad numbers of people. It is like a sharp knife seeking to expose and make raw a glaring contradiction and draw blood around it.”
(Revolution)
What about polygamy? Abraham practiced polygamy. Orson Pratt thought the ancient Israelites must have practiced polygamy based on their reproduction rate and the low number of men who were married. But then, the Book of Mormon commanded the people not to practice polygamy. The New Testament forbid it. The early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints likewise denounced polygamy, but then the church turned around and boldly practiced it. Skeptics are all over these contradictions like rats on cheese. But they fail to understand context, temporary policy, and eternal principle. They can’t accept that circumstances change and that it is impossible to travel back in time to see why Brigham Young did it. Skeptics have used polygamy as a punching bag to practice instilling fear of contradiction in the public. To them, if things change so easily, ancient scripture is essentially useless. They want a textbook that just tells them what to do, what rules to follow, and how to be. It’s so obvious, reading Antimormon websites, that they just want a religion that mellifluously spells out every detail of how to live their lives.
But that’s not what scripture is. I think the biggest challenge to understanding scripture is popular culture’s tendency to make people into robots that follow orders, a bunch of NPC characters in a video game. That’s what public education does. That’s what TV does. That’s what government does. That’s not what scripture does, despite the insistence of so many big churches trying to make it that way. Scriptures give us time-tested principles and we are expected to adapt it to our own life. It’s the contradictions that allow us to do that. One branch on a tree does not need to look exactly the same as the other branch. By studying those differences we can see what about a branch makes it a branch, and apply it to our personal lives. We are no longer restricted by a need for up-to-date instructions tailored to our situation.
Would a just God allow scripture to be corrupted and lead people astray? How could God stand that His scripture was used as justification by the conquistadors for their genocides?
Well, the Bible was banned from the general public by the Catholic Church for a long time in the Dark Ages because they didn’t think the common public could handle the responsibility. People were cherry-picking things to justify evil behavior. Like the government restricting people from owning guns, they thought it best to remove an empowering but dangerous device. It was much easier for the Catholic Church to decide everything and give the general public their marching orders. Is that what you want in a God? This is not how our church does things. In our church, everyone gets to preach from the pulpit, all men can have the opportunity to use the priesthood, every member is a missionary, and every member has a church calling. We make leaders, not followers. It is a dangerous thing, because it can be used for priestcrafts. But we believe that an educated population is less likely to allow power abuse because they will easily see that scripture does not justify genocide.
When I was in high school, I came across a New Testament scripture that seemed to indicate there is no eternal marriage. It looked very clear cut. Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven. In an interview, my Bishop asked me if I had any questions about the gospel, anything at all. I asked him about this verse, and he didn’t know the answer. Didn’t know the answer? I thought Bishops were supposed to have the answers!? He urged me to study it for myself. Many skeptics likewise say they had questions that church leaders couldn’t answer. These skeptics then read an Antimormon website, made up their mind, and there was no changing their mind.
I took a different path. I studied the issue for many years. Ten years later I came across the answer. Finding this answer has brought with it other important discoveries. For me, this answer also answered the question of why Joseph Smith was sealed to multiple women. I had heard church leaders talk about the difference between civil marriage and eternal marriage, but it never occurred to me what it truly meant, all the encompassing implications, that civil marriage would end at death, till death do we part. I’m glad that I did not give up looking for an answer, even when the contradiction in scripture appeared so evident. I have since discovered that this glaring contradiction is not a bad thing, but an opportunity for discovery. One man looks at a crack in the earth and sees an annoyance that he has to travel around it. A wise man looks at the crack in the earth and sees an opportunity to mine for gold.
I’m also glad that I did not just try to convince myself with an answer that I didn’t know was true. Unfortunately, I think some in the church do this. They settle for something less than the final answer because they are afraid that investigation will destroy their faith. Conversely, there are those who refuse to admit that there is something they don’t know. They insist on knowing full context about every little detail, which can’t practically be known, and they settle on whatever explanation is in style–divining rods, peep stones, multiple Isaiah authors, etc. This is dangerous because false context leads to a false definition, and socially acceptable moral ideas suddenly look like eternal moral principles–which they aren’t It’s okay if a lot of context is lost to the sands of time, because we have a second branch to compare it by. I have been amazed at the depth of study that I have personally achieved with this approach. I love learning about ancient Egyptian and discovering an aspect of the Book of Abraham that shifts what I thought about the ancient world and touches my life personally. It is a wonderful and liberating thing to let go of my narrow focus of how I thought things were and allow scripture to erase the dissonance.