Skip to main content

An Overlooked Argument Against the Book of Mormon

Image
By

The Book of Mormon is written in a style of language that was not used by anyone at the time that it was written and published. This style of English is called Early Modern English. This fact is an anachronism that I find to be severely overlooked by those who seek the truth about the Book of Mormon. Many Mormons will instantly write this objection off concerning the veracity of the Book of Mormon, even to the point of saying that such an objection is lazy and pitiful, while not giving any rebuttals worth their weight. 

I recently insinuated the absurdity of the Book of Mormon by asking the question, “Why was the Book of Mormon translated into Early Modern English?” I’m saying that it is absurd that the BoM uses an out-of-date language.

A Mormon replied to me that the Bible has equal absurdities. He said, “Why is [The BoM translation into Early Modern English] absurd? Is it absurd that God uses a donkey to speak to Balaam in Numbers 22?” 


First, this is a tu quoque fallacy (not to mention a strawman, more below). He is essentially saying that “your religion has things that might be considered absurd as well.” The problem is that it does not provide warrant for the veracity of the Book of Mormon to bring another idea down to its same level. We might say, “two wrongs do not make a right.” This is the reasoning behind his rebuttal to my claim about the Book of Mormon. 

Second, I want to steelman his argument, which is presenting an argument that is stronger than one’s opponents’ argument for his position and then countering this stronger argument. In the field of medieval jousting, a person practices with a strawman, a man who cannot fight back, but is also easily knocked off his horse by the opponent’s lance. In faulty reasoning, a strawman fallacy (set up by person B) is purposely misrepresenting a position (of person A) in order to defeat such a misrepresentation. In a different setting, a steelman is where the person (B) who hears a claim (from A) sets up in a stronger form this same argument (of person A) in order to persuade his opponent (A) that such a position is false. If I say, “I see what you mean” when hearing the position of a person, but then I introduce a better argument than their own proving to them that “I see what you mean” and by doing so, I gain their trust, but then I attack this argument that I invented, I am steelmanning them. 

With that aside, let’s begin to examine the situation. First, we want to look at the story of Balaam and his donkey, so we have the background idea of what is taking place.

 

Numbers 22:22-31

But God's anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 And the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field. And Balaam struck the donkey, to turn her into the road. 24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. 25 And when the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she pushed against the wall and pressed Balaam's foot against the wall. So he struck her again. 26 Then the angel of the Lord went ahead and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam. And Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.” 31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face.

 

A donkey is a living animal with a mouth tongue and larynx and even vocal folds. Still, the absurd part of this from the Mormon objector’s perspective is simply that a donkey spoke human language at all, to a human being. To steelman this, I could say that “I see what you mean,” but vocal cords and such are not even required for God to speak, since a burning bush spoke as well, according to the Bible. This would be a stronger argument for his position… that God used a bush to speak. In other words, I would be showing him how much more absurd it is (from his perspective), that a voice came from a bush.

 

Exodus 3:1-6

Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” 4 When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

 

So, God called to Moses out of the bush. We could even go further in steelmanning his argument and say that it is absurd that the bush is not consumed even though it was on fire. But what is interesting here is that Jesus quotes part of the Exodus passage mentioned above in the New Testament, and elaborates on it, further revealing the nature of God.

 

Matthew 22:23-33

 “23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.”

 

(Consider also Luke 9:59-60, "To another he said, 'Follow me.' But he said, 'Lord, let me first go and bury my father.' And Jesus said to him, 'Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God'").

To finish off the steelman, so to speak, it is unreasonable (absurd) that God would use expired language to speak to His contemporary people. God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. The donkey was living. The burning bush was living. The language used in the Book of Mormon was dead. Therefore, the language used in the Book of Mormon goes against the nature of God.[1]

Considering 1 Corinthians 9:22, I argue that in Paul’s method of witnessing, he meets people where they are at in life, because he sees that God meets people where they are at by becoming man in the body of Jesus Christ and coming to earth. He did not use an expired language when He came. He did not live in an expired culture. This just further confirms that God meets people where they are.

If a Mormon were to argue that God resurrects the dead, this would be a false analogy, since we know that Early Modern English is something that no one uses in our day and age. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. He has power over the dead, which we see in Jesus raising people to life, and Himself defeating death. But if God raised Early Modern English back to life, then it would be experienced objectively by everyone, not just the book of Mormon. Just like Lazarus being brought back from the dead was experienced objectively. It was true for everyone that Lazarus was alive again. It was not true for everyone that Early Modern English was alive again. The fact is that Early Modern English is not resurrected but is itself, another nail in the coffin for Mormonism. 


The syllogism looks like this:

1.     If the Book of Mormon were of God, then it would have used a living language.

2.     It did not use a living language.

3.     Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not of God. 



For more, see my book on Mormonism: 


 https://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Refuting-Fundamental-Apologetics-Latter-Day/dp/1662885377/  


Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus




© Nace Howell, 2025

[1] Consider also Luke 9:59-60 “To another he said, ’Follow me.’ But he said, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Objectivity is the Language of Heaven

By
NDErs (i. e. people who have claimed to have had a   Near Death Experience ) often report that when they go to Heaven, they frequently see and recognize people such as friends and family members. It is often also reported that when they were communicating with friends and relatives, they realized that they weren’t speaking English, but that they were telepathically speaking to one another.   It seems it would be impossible to have communication with others without learning every language that has ever existed under the sun, but since heaven is a perfect place, [1]  then communication should be perfect as well. In other words, it seems unlikely that there are barriers to communication. So, I should be able to communicate with the Apostles, upon my arrival for instance, but how? I personally only really know how to speak English fluently. My Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, Chinese, and Latin is like that of a child, and my Greek is only in reading and writing.  If ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Self-tests of Some of the World's Religions

By
It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers.  If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself.  Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely,  God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that  if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true ...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Show a Mormon the Difference Between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus

By
I find that Mormons frequently claim that they are Christians, and that they want to be referred to as Christians, and that they have even recently sought to distance themselves from the word “Mormon.” The problem is, they worship another Jesus, and here is how to show them the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus. Before we get to that, some clarifications are necessary. Specifically, that they cannot even distance themselves from being called "Mormons."   The Mormon President Russell Nelson said,    “What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” [1] ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Highest Virtue

By
A virtue is a trait of excellence. What is the highest virtue? It seems that based on the nature of truth, that truth itself is perhaps the highest virtue. For instance, I could say that love is the highest virtue, but then I could ask the question of whether that is true or not. If it is or isn’t true, this places truth virtuously higher than love, at least in some sense. The fact that I can question love through the lens of truth seems to place truth above love in height of virtue. On the other hand, if I said that truth is the highest virtue, then it seems that it would be loving to tell others the truth! Perhaps truth and love go hand in hand, but this also concerns the nature of what truth is.  Truth is a requirement for love, which I argue here , but is love a requirement for truth? Love must contain truth in order to be  true  love. But truth does not have to contain love in order to be true truth. Take for instance, mathematics, or numbers in general… Sometimes, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Made God? Identifying Categorical Errors

By
A category is simply a distinct class to which something belongs… A set of objects that can be treated as equal in some way. A Macintosh apple belongs to the category, apple, and not what we categorize as an orange. Similarly, colors are in a different category than taste.   When we say, “apples and oranges” what we mean is that there has been a confusion of categories. Sure, they are both fruit, but when you examine both, there is an obvious difference. An apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple. Macintosh, Granny Smith, and red delicious are all apples. Navel, blood, and Valencia are all oranges. To mix the two, for instance, to call a navel orange an apple, would be a categorical error, sometimes referred to as a category mistake.      How Identifying Categorical Errors can Help with Apologetics It seems that simply learning about or being reminded of categorical errors can help us be more aware of them. We have all heard or thought of ourselves, the...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Dividing Line of Doctrine

By
How and Where to Make Divisions... Sometimes, I get asked “Why do you get so up at arms about other religions?” or, “Why do you pick on other religions so much?” I think the following will help you see where I’m coming from, before I spill the beans on such.   We have difficulty sometimes in discovering where to make divisions when considering where to spend our money, and who to support, where to make purchases, and where not to do such. We also often have difficulty on how to know if a church or a congregation is a place where someone can actually become saved. Like, how can we know that a Mormon is likely not saved but we can know that a regular church attender at a gospel sound church is likely saved? What is it that would make my church attendance at a specific body no longer appropriate? Both answers to these questions deal with doctrine. If a company is pushing false doctrine using their influence and power to push a heretical doctrine or teaching, this is often when the red...
Post a Comment
Read more

Two Problems Jesus has with the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Families

By
Mormonism teaches that those who are married in a temple can be married for eternity. In Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–20, we find the following:   15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word , and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead , and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God for...
Post a Comment
Read more

Using Guilt to Guide to the Truth

By
While taking a cultural apologetics class in my doctorate, I rambled along in a 30-page paper and in it, I wrote that, “I define religion as an anthropological system consisting of worship which is often filled with specific sacred rituals that seeks to appease or eradicate guilt.” My professor red-penned this and said that I am not yet in an authoritative position to make such definitions. But I was never asked how I came up with such a definition. The thing is, working on my second post-graduate degree in apologetics, studying many other religions on a deeper level was inevitable, and  by this, I noticed a pattern in all of them which was the fact that they all seek to appease or eradicate guilt, including   Buddhism , even though   many adherents of Buddhism claim that it is not a religion . The point is that all religions seek to eradicate guilt on some level, because   guilt crosses all cultures and times, to all people .   Guilt transcends all people. The ...
4 comments
Read more

Baptism is Not Necessary for Salvation According to the Early Church

By
Let’s dive right in. The Bible says in Acts 2:37-41,    Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.   The phrase in Acts 2:38 that reads, “for the forgiveness of your sins” modifies the word repentance, not the word baptism.  See more about this Here .   What is interesting is that those who translate the above verse as meaning that baptism is a requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Evidence and Power of Testimony

By
What to say to People who Demand more Evidence for God. Why is there something rather than nothing? Glacier National Park. © Nace Howell, 2018. The question is, how much evidence do you require? Would Jesus have to come back and slap you in the face with evidence that He is God? It seems to me that there is a line we must draw. We do this in all other areas of our lives, so why would we treat theism any different? When a court convicts, they do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would like to take a few moments to explore this a bit. But before we get to that, I want to pose a question, which is… why are you the standard? What makes you think He has to prove His existence to everyone individually? He already created the universe from nothing. In the beginning, there was a big bang. Seriously… do you believe your mom when she tells you a story about her day? Did you believe the reports of 9/11 when they were happening? Do you accept the testimony of anything you hear on social ...
33 comments
Read more