Introduction - How This Article Came About

            This article gathers together my own observations as well as comments of others. Some of these problems are well-known, but some of them I have never seen discussed before. So far as I am aware, nowhere else has Mormonism been critiqued solely from a linguistic point of view, gathering together all of the linguistic problems in one place.

"[The president of the church is]...to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church." [emphasis added]. (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 107:92, see also D&C 21:1)

            As Joseph Smith gained confidence during his career as the head of a growing church, he continued to be fascinated with languages, and he continued to translate. Even though he claimed that he possessed (as head of the church) the divine power to translate other languages (implicitly without actually studying them ), he spent considerable effort to study other languages in the ordinary, non-divine way. He hired tutors in Hebrew, and studied modern languages such as German. He occasionally showed off his supposed knowledge of foreign languages, as in his "Appeal to the Freemen of the State of Vermont," where he demonstrated his linguistic ability by writing in seventeen different languages (quoted in Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, p. 292).

            In addition to the Book of Mormon, he made several other "translations":

"Translated by the power of God"

"Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;..."

            Mormons will probably cite as an excuse for such errors the passage in the Book of Mormon (BoM), which says (Mormon 8:17) "And if there be faults [in this record] they be the faults of a man....". They do not seem to realize that such an admission implies that any faults mean that - at least at that point - the man was not inspired by God.

            Mormon apologists who try to deal with the many translation problems often try to excuse and explain the problems by showing how translating is an inaccurate art, how difficult it is, how translators are hampered by the inexact correspondence of one language with another. All of which is very true, if one is looking at a translation done by a translator who was working with no divine assistance. But none of those excuses can apply to Joseph Smith, who, although he was called the "translator," was merely supposed to be acting as God' secretary. Accounts of the "translation" process which produced the Book of Mormon describe how the divine power would not let him proceed past a phrase until God considered it correct.

            However, it is often important, in deciding whether to trust what a document says, to know whether its purported author really wrote it, or whether it was written later (especially much later) by someone else. Thus, techniques were developed by scholars to test such texts, and these tests have proved to be remarkably helpful and accurate.

            One of the most important tests for uncovering an allegedly ancient text that is really a product of later times is the presence of anachronisms, that is, things that are inappropriate to the time in which the work supposedly was written. It is a very straightforward and relatively common-sense test.

            For example: Suppose I show you a small book that says on its cover: "Journal of Gen'l George Washington." You look through the book and at first reading it does, indeed, appear to be the journal of a period in the life of George Washington. What a treasure! It sounds authentic. Its language is typical of the late 18th century, when Washington lived. It contains material hitherto unknown to historians, and yet not contradictory to what is known. I explain to you that it is a faithful typewritten copy of a handwritten book that was found among my grandfather's belongings.

            As you read it, however, you come across this sentence: "This aft'noon rec'd an urgent wire, took the rr train to Philadelphia, arr'd toward evening, met by M. Adams at the sta."

            What is your reaction? Are you suspicious? You know that the railroad did not exist in Washington's day, nor did the term "rr train" or "sta[tion]" as a place where one would meet a "rr train." Nor was a message called a "wire", since that term came into use only with the invention of the telegraph in the next century. These are anachronisms, and immediately mark the text as not from the times of Washington.

            What explanation could I give you that would persuade you to accept this text as genuine? I could probably try to defend the authenticity of my text. I could suggest that "rr train" was probably a special shorthand Washington was using for "stagecoach" (even though there is no evidence of such a use in any genuine Washington writings, or in any other writings from the time). A similar argument might be made for "wire" for a message. But to any scholar, and to any ordinary person using common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of history, this text is a clumsy fraud.

            Would you change your mind if I listed all the things that are authentic in the text, or that sound believable or possible? No, I would hope not.

            Would you change your mind if I argued that, after all, it was only two little anachronisms? No, I would hope not. Even only one anachronism - unless it can be conclusively shown to be a later insertion by someone else (a corruption of the original text) - is enough to condemn a text as not authentic.

            Would you change your mind if I confided to you that the journal had been given to my grandfather by an angel of God, and that the angel had told him that it was authentic? I suppose to some people that would make a difference, but only the very, very gullible.

            The examples given above are of anachronistic objects. A linguistic anachronism is the use of a word which actually did not come into use until much later than the alleged date of the document. For example, if we found in the purported journal of Washington the expression "fifth column" (meaning undercover sabotage agents), we would know that the journal is not authentic, since that expression was coined and first used during the Spanish Civil War in the twentieth century. Many of the anachronisms in Mormon scriptures are of this type, as will be illustrated below.

            Apparently someone who knew some Greek tried to make something of this, and Joseph Smith responded with a "letter to the editor":

Editor of the Times and Seasons:

SIR:—Through the medium of your paper I wish to correct an error among men that profess to be learned, liberal and wise; and I do it the more cheerfully because I hope sober-thinking and sound-reasoning people will sooner listen to the voice of truth than be led astray by the vain pretensions of the self-wise.

The error I speak of is the definition of the word "Mormon." It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of the book speak for itself. ...

Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, "I am the good shepherd" and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word MORMON; which means, literally, more good.

Yours,
JOSEPH SMITH.

[emphasis added] Times and Seasons, Vol.4, No.13, May 15, 1843, p.194,
also History of the Church Vol. 5, p.399, in a slightly altered version

            If Joseph Smith was simply translating by the power of God, without actually having to know the foreign language(s) from which he was translating, how did he know that there was no Latin or Greek? Since Smith did not know any Latin or Greek at the time he was "translating" the plates, it must have been God who told him that there was no Latin or Greek in the plates. (Remember this statement for later!)

            How does a modern English word ("more") come to be part of an ancient Nephite (or Egyptian?) name?

            Each of these King James New Testament passages refers to the words of "Esaias" and then quotes the book of Isaiah. It would seem obvious that in the minds of the New Testament writers Isaiah and Esaias are one and the same.

            But D&C 84:11-13 says that Esaias was a prophet who lived in the days of Abraham, many centuries before Isaiah. And D&C 76:100 distinguishes Esaias from Isaiah:

"...these are they who say they are some of one and some of another; some of Christ; and some of John; and some of Moses; and some of Elias; and some of Esaias; and some of Isaiah; ..." [emphasis added]

            Thus, according to Mormon revelation through Joseph Smith, there was a prophet in the days of Abraham who had a Greek name, the same name as used by speakers of Greek two thousand years later for the great prophet Isaiah, and who appears to be unknown to any bible writer, but upon whom God personally conferred the priesthood. And his prophecies of the coming savior are lost.

            Perhaps God should have explained to Joseph Smith that the same person's name can appear in different versions in different languages, but it is still the same person: the king who is called Charlemagne by the French and the English is the same person that the Germans call Karl der Grosse; the emperor called Don Carlos by the Spaniards is the same person we call Charles V.

            The name 'Elijah' occurs in this Hebrew form in the Bible (King James Translation) only in the Old Testament, over sixty times. Almost all occurrences are in I and II Kings, but a very important occurrence is in the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

            This is a fundamental mistranslation of the Hebrew scriptures.

            Exodus 6:2-3 says, translated literally from Hebrew:

2 And Elohim spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am YHWH [Jehovah].
3 And I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as "El Shaddai" [God Almighty], but by my name YHWH I was not known to them.

            The Hebrew word "Elohim" means "God" and is translated in most English Bibles by "God," whereas "YHWH" - as this passage indicates, is the sacred name of God, and is translated in most English Bibles as "the LORD". In the Old Testament the terms are almost interchangeable, and frequently one version of an Old Testament story refers to the deity as "Elohim" (translated as "God") and another version of the same story uses the term "YHWH" (translated as "the LORD"). There are hundreds of such examples. In fact, it was the use of these different terms in Hebrew for the deity that first led scholars to surmise that the first five books of the Old Testament are from differing sources and traditions: one that called God "Elohim", and another that called him "YHWH". Here are just a few examples:

            In the Flood story, God is referred to as "Elohim" in Gen 6:9-22; 7:9, 16; 8:1, 15. But God - apparently the same God - is called "YHWH (Jehovah)" in 6:5-7; 7:1-5, 16; 8:20. In God's dealings with Abraham, God is called "Elohim" in Genesis 17, but "YHWH" in Genesis 18. It is clear that these are not two different personages, but just one God, referred to by two different terms. Hundreds of other examples could be cited. (See any analytical concordance under "God" and "Lord" for a complete listing.)

            The Hebrew word 'elohim' is grammatically the plural of the noun 'el' or 'eloi', which was the Semitic word meaning "god." It is the same root as in the Arabic word "Allah." Scholars believe that the Hebrews adopted the word from their neighbors the Canaanites, since "El" was the name of one of their chief gods.

            Joseph Smith, after he began to study Hebrew with a Hebrew teacher and later began to delve into the Jewish occultism in the Kabbalah, made much of the fact that the word "Elohim" is grammatically plural, and used that to justify his doctrine of the plurality of gods. This is reflected in his Book of Abraham, where "the gods" are reported to have created the world (Abraham 3), whereas the corresponding passages of his (equally inspired?) Book of Moses (Moses 2), the creator reports that "I, God, said, Let there be light [etc.]"

            The Hebrew word which gives us the term "messiah" is 'mashiach,' meaning literally "[the] anointed [one]" and is used 47 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, in reference to all anointed persons: priests, kings, etc. It is only relatively late in Hebrew literature that it came to have the additional special meaning of the yet-to-come anointed king of the house of David who was expected to appear and free the Jews from foreign domination and establish God's kingdom forever on earth, and thus also end the world as we know it.

            Usually in the New Testament, which was written in Greek, the Hebrew word 'mashiach' is translated into Greek with the Greek word which means "anointed": 'christos', and that Greek word is usually not translated into English, but only transliterated (anglicized), as "Christ," with a capital letter.

            One of the fundamental teachings of Christianity, of course (and I am including Mormonism here, since Mormons share this view), is that Jesus was that promised Messiah (or "anointed [king]").

            In the Greek of the New Testament, of course, he was referred to as "Jesus the Anointed One" ('Iesous ho christos'), which in Hebrew or Aramaic would be something like "Ieshua ha mashiach."

            Now, when we look at the Book of Mormon (supposedly translated from Hebrew written in "Reformed Egyptian"), we find that the term "Messiah" occurs about 25 times. The term "Christ" occurs about 317 times.

            Several questions arise:

            What is the difference, for the Book of Mormon author(s), between the Hebrew word "messiah" and the Greek word "christ"? (Especially when Joseph Smith insisted that there were no Greek words in the Book of Mormon.) Why is the Hebrew word used sometimes, but the Greek word at other times? Remember, these authors are supposedly Jews who knew no Greek! Were there two different Nephite (i.e. "Reformed Egyptian") words in the original text, one to be translated as "Messiah" and the other as "Christ"? If so, what was the difference in their meaning, and what was their origin?

            The confusion is compounded in 2 Nephi 25:19, where Nephi writes:

For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. [emphasis added]

            Putting aside for the moment the question "What Old Testament prophets said that the messiah would be named Jesus Christ?" we would like to ask what this passage must have looked like in "Reformed Egyptian," since it is translating two occurrences of the same word ("the anointed one") in different ways, one with the Greek word "Christ" and one with the Hebrew word "Messiah." Why?

            Another question is why Nephi would think that the word "Christ" is a "name"! It is not a name, even though many Sunday School children think of it as a name ("Jesus Christ was the son of Joseph Christ and Mary Christ"). It is a title. This passage is like saying "The name of the Father of our country was President Washington."

            Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed to have Greek and Hebrew words at his disposal, but he did not understand their meaning. Does that sound like God? Or Nephi? Or Joseph Smith?

24 And I also spake unto him that I should carry the engravings, which were upon the plates of brass, to my elder brethren, who were without the walls.
25 And I also bade him that he should follow me.
26 And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me. [emphasis added]

What word could Nephi have been using in "Reformed Egyptian" that God would inspire Joseph Smith to translate as "church"? The word "church" is never used in the Old Testament, not even in the King James Version. In fact, there was no such thing as a "church" among the Jews in 600 B.C. When the Jews referred to the religious community of Jews (which was really just the community of Jews - there was no notion of "religion" or religious organization separate from the idea of the community), they used Hebrew terms which are translated in the KJV Old Testament as "congregation" (over 300 occurrences): usually translating the Hebrew words 'moed' ("meeting place, meeting"), 'edah' ("appointed meeting, assembly, people"), or 'qahal' ("gathering, assembly").

Why would God not inspire Joseph Smith to use a word that would fit in with the King James style that Smith was using already? Like "congregation"? The word "church" occurs in the Bible (KJV) only in the New Testament, and, except for two passages in Matthew (which many scholars consider to be later interpolations), only after the death of Jesus and the rise of the organization referred to since then as the "church." In the English New Testament the word "church" is usually used to translate the Greek word 'ekklesia,' which literally means "assembly" from the root meaning "call forth." The term meant specifically the organization to which the followers of Jesus belonged, to distinguish them from the Jewish "congregation."

            In 600 B.C. the organization of the religious life of the Jews was simply the organization of the hereditary priesthood, and either one was born a priest, or one was not. There was no organization to "join." There was no "church."

            This becomes even stranger when Nephi begins to talk about the "two churches" of God and of the devil, in 1 Nephi 14, in the sense of distinctive religious groups with differing beliefs.

            And then, in Mosiah 25:19-21, the word "churches" is used as though for the first time. Notice that the author feels he must explain what "churches" means. But didn't Nephi already use the "Reformed Egyptian" term, and didn't the writer of Mosiah have Nephi's writing available?

19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.
20 Now this was done because there were so many people that they could not all be governed by one teacher; neither could they all hear the word of God in one assembly;
21 Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma. [emphasis added]

            The Jews, meanwhile, in Palestine, were meeting in "synagogues" for worship, prayer and teaching. And "synagogues" are mentioned frequently in the Book of Mormon (25 occurrences). However, the word as used there is not used as a variant of "church," but rather appears to mean something different - usually the place of worship of a sincere but false religion. One of the first occurrences of "synagogue" in the Book of Mormon is Alma 16:13:

"And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews."

            Even the word "synagogue" is Greek (from 'syn-' "together" and 'ag-' "bring, lead"), and, as mentioned earlier, Greek influence was practically non-existent in Palestine until the fourth century B.C., long after Lehi supposedly had left. The word "synagogue" is used only once in the KJV Old Testament (Psalm 74:8) as a translation for 'moed.' So what is it doing in the Book of Mormon?

            Is it possible that Joseph Smith (and his "divine" inspiration) couldn't translate these terms properly, thus casting doubt on the divinity of the work? Or is it more likely that this is just another indication that Joseph Smith was trying to produce another "bible" on his own, without sufficient linguistic knowledge to get away with it?

            Of course, Mormons will say that these passages prove that there were synagogues and churches in Jerusalem in 600 B.C.

            The word "Bible" is being used here in the sense that it had in Joseph Smith's day: a collection of sacred writings in a closed canon.

            The word "Bible," of course, is not found in the Bible itself. When the original Bible writers wanted to refer to the sacred writings, the Hebrew writers in the Old Testament used the Hebrew word 'k-th-b' "writing(s)." which included all kinds of writings, both secular and sacred. The New Testament writers, writing in Greek, used the word 'graphe,' which also means simply "[something] written" or even "drawn, painted."

            Our English word "Bible" is an anglicization of the Greek word 'biblia', which means "books," and is simply the plural of the Greek word 'biblion' meaning "book." This word (in its singular form only) appears about twenty times in the New Testament, referring to a particular sacred book. But it never appears in the plural (except once, and then it refers to pagan writings). The idea of a Christian canon (list of approved books, a "Bible" in the traditional sense) began only in the second century A.D., and the first such "canon" was put together by Marcion about 150 A.D. (who is now considered by Christians to be a heretic).

            The King James Version of the Bible uses the word "scriptures" only in the New Testament, where it is very common. ("Scripture" in the singular, appears in the KJV Old Testament, and only once, in Daniel 10:21.)

            At the time Lehi supposedly left Jerusalem (600 B.C.) the idea of a closed canon of scripture (a "Bible") had not developed. There was no such thing. If you study the history of the development of the Jewish and Christian canon, you will find that the idea of canonizing certain books (that is, stamping them with the seal of divine authority) did not arise until the Alexandrian Jews, who no longer were fluent in Hebrew, wanted to translate the Hebrew sacred writings into Greek (about 250 B.C.), and thus a decision had to be made as to what books to translate. The result, completed only after several generations, was the Greek Septuagint (Old Testament), the first attempt to create a canon, a "bible." The Jewish canon was not determined completely until the first century A.D.

            So the question arises with the word "Bible" in 2 Nephi: what Hebrew (or "Reformed Egyptian") word appeared on the golden plates, to be translated as "Bible"? The Book of Mormon uses the word "scriptures" about 38 times. It is used in the way the New Testament writers use it. "Bible" is a word, and - more important - a concept which did not even exist until several centuries after it was supposedly written by Nephi.

            If the Book of Mormon were authentic and historically accurate, one would expect that when God told Nephi that the Gentiles would cry, "A Bible! We have a Bible!" Nephi would have asked, "Excuse me, God, what does 'Bible' mean? It's an idea I'm not familiar with." And God would have given Nephi an explanation, so that Nephite readers of his record would know what was meant: something that would develop only many centuries later.

More on Book of Mormon Names

            Mormons object to the critics' calling such similarities "pure coincidence." And yet that is precisely the argument Mormons use when presented with remarkable similarities of Book of Mormon names to names which existed in the world of the 19th century.

            The names "Cumorah" (spelled in the original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon as "Camorah") and "Moroni" appeared on maps available in Joseph Smith's time, showing the Camoros Islands with their capital city Moroni. A remarkable coincidence!

"virgin" - 2 Nephi 17:14 = Isaiah 7:14

            The error can be traced back to the fact that the King James translators relied heavily on the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by Jerome, from the 4th century A.D. Jerome, in turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament. In Greek there is only one word for both meanings ("virgin" and "young woman"), making the Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous. But why would Nephi be confused? He was (supposedly) in possession of the original Hebrew text, which would have had the word 'almah,' not 'bethulah.' But he mistranslates the passage just as Jerome and the King James translators mistranslated it many centuries later.

            The only place the word "Lucifer" occurs in the entire Bible is in the King James Version at this passage. Other translations do not have "Lucifer" there (or anywhere at all), but translate the word correctly as "day-star," "star of the morning" or "morning star."

            This passage, when read in context, is addressed to the king of Babylon, who was very proud and haughty and surrounded in worldly glory, but who was to be destroyed. "Lucifer" is used in Jerome's Latin (and, following Jerome, in the King James Version) to translate the Hebrew word 'helel', which means "morning star" (i.e., the planet Venus). The Hebrew root 'h-l-l' means "shine" or "boast," so it is probably a taunting pun in the Hebrew Isaiah. There were two Greek names for the planet, both similar: either 'heos-phoros' meaning "dawn-bringer," or 'phos-phoros' meaning "light-bringer." In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of this passage, probably made in the first or second century B.C., they translated 'helel' with the Greek word 'heos-phoros.' When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he used the Septuagint as his source and simply translated the Greek word for Venus into the Latin name of that planet, which is an exact translation of the Greek 'phos-phoros': luci-fer, from the Latin roots 'luc-' "light" and 'fer-' "bring, bear, carry."

            It was not until well into the Christian era that the idea arose that "Lucifer" was a name, and that the verse applied to Satan and not to the king of Babylon. It is probably influenced by the (erroneous) assumption that Luke 10:18 (saying that Satan fell as lightning from heaven) is a reference to the Isaiah passage.

            Oddly, the only other place in the Bible where the term "morning star" ('phosphoros') is used is at 2 Peter 1:19, where it refers to Jesus!

            Revelations 2:28 and 22:16 also refer to the "morning star," meaning Jesus, but use a different Greek phrase made up of the Greek words for "morning" and "star." One verse promises the "morning star" as a reward to the faithful; the latter verse is Jesus' saying "I Jesus ... am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

            This error is compounded in modern Mormon theology, with Lucifer as the name of a character in the endowment ceremony. See also D&C 76:25-27:

"And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, 26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him--he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. 27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!"

And thou shalt be brought down, [and] shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

14 But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men.
15 After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten.
16 For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust.
17 For thus saith the Lord God: They shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God. [emphasis added]

            The problem becomes more serious for the Book of Mormon, however, since it also uses the term in attributing the knowledge of steel-making to the Jaredites (Ether 7:9), just a few generations after they are supposed to have left the Old World at the time of the Tower of Babel (ca. 2200 B.C.?). Notice that the mention of steel does not imply that it is anything newly invented or previously unknown, but rather quite familiar.

"And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director--or our fathers called it Liahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it." [emphasis added]

            The passage in Alma is clearly an attempt to explain one (unfamiliar) thing by saying it is like something else, something familiar. Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a translation from Reformed Egyptian (or Nephite?), the English word "compass" must be a translation - divinely inspired, therefore correct! - for some Reformed Egyptian (or Nephite?) word that means what "compass" meant in 1830 American English in such a context, namely, a magnetic instrument used to determine geographical direction.

            Now, go to your encyclopedia and read the article on the history of the compass. You will find that there was no such thing, not even the idea of any such thing, until about 1100 AD in China, about 1187 AD in Europe, about 1220 AD in Arabia, and about 1330 AD in Scandinavia.

            How could a word exist (the Nephite word translated as "compass") when no such device existed (other than the Liahona, of course), or would exist for another 1800 years? (The word "compass" is frequently used in the English Bible translations, of course, but never in the meaning of a direction device, only in the quite unrelated meaning of "limit, circle, boundary, etc.")

            It would be analagous to the passage in Washington's fraudulent journal, where he looks into the future in America, and says: "There will come a time when every man will possess a wonderful device somewhat like a typewriter, yet it will have a picture before it, and the words typed by the typewriter will appear in the picture, and can be sent around the world..." How could Washington explain what a computer is by comparing it to a typewriter, when there was no such thing as a typewriter in his day, and therefore the word "typewriter" did not exist?

            And of course the Mormon will argue the Nephites also had compasses, but they all rotted or rusted away, like the chariots and the steel swords.

22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?
23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces.... [emphasis added]

            Of course, windows are mentioned frequently in the Bible. But they are not windows that could be "dashed in pieces." They are mere openings. The only Bible passage which might be thought to indicate that ancient windows had some translucent material is Isaiah 54:12, God's promise to Israel captive in Babylon, which in the KJV is translated: "I will make thy windows of agates." No other modern translation has "windows" here. The Revised Standard Version translates it "pinnacles," the Jerusalem Bible has "battlements," Today's English Version has "towers," and the Contemporary English Version has "fortresses," with a footnote that the Hebrew text is "difficult" here. In other words, modern scholars do not agree with the translators of the King James Version. Difficult or not, the Book of Mormon reproduces the KJV translation, at 3 Nephi 22:12.

            Another, more valid objection, is that it is incredible that good Jews such as Lehi and his family would have kept sacred records in a language such as Egyptian. That seems to be inconceivable in light of the reverence in which Jews held the Hebrew language.

            A much more serious problem for Mormons, however, is the justification which is given for writing in Egyptian characters rather than in Hebrew. Mormon, after whom the book is named, supposedly writing the abridgement on the gold plates which later became the Book of Mormon, explains (Mormon 9:32-33):

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

            These nine verses are a typical "etiological" myth, i.e., a story invented to explain why something is so, much like children's stories called "How the leopard got his spots," "Why the sea is salty," "Why the sky is blue," etc. There are a number of other etiological tales in the Bible, such as the tales to explain why a snake has no legs (Gen. 3), or why we see a rainbow after a storm (Gen.9:13-16).

            The point is: the Tower of Babel story is just a story, a myth, an etiological fable. It no more explains the origin of the many languages of the world than does the punishment of Satan explain why snakes have no legs.

            Just as scientists can explain the beautiful phenomenon of the rainbow by using the laws of optics (which undoubtedly existed long before Noah's time), so linguistic scientists can show that the many languages of mankind existed long before the period to which the Tower of Babel can be assigned (Mormons believe the Jaredites made their journey to America about 2200 B.C.). No reputable linguistic scholar today accepts the Tower of Babel story as an explanation for the multiplicity of languages, for their origins, or for the date of their origins. The simple fact is that there are writings in many parts of the ancient world (China, Mesopotamia, Egypt), in widely different languages, dating from a thousand years before the supposed time of the Tower. This uncontroverted fact shows that the Babel story is only a myth. (See, for example, the article "Hamito-Semitic Languages" in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macr 8:592ff, which gives the dates of the first appearance of those languages: Akkadian, 3200 BC; Canaanite, Ugaritic, Amorite, 3000 BC.)

            But it is not only the languages of the all the world that supposedly originated at the Tower of Babel, but also all the peoples of the world (Gen 11:8-9)! In other words, in order to accept the story of the Tower as literal and historical, one must believe that there were no other peoples on earth at the time. Such a belief is contrary to everything that we know about the early periods of human history.

            If Mormons should suggest that the Tower of Babel must have been therefore much earlier than 2200 B.C., they have the problem that Ether 1:6-33 lists the generations from Jared (who left the Tower) to the last Jaredite, and there are only 28 generations. The last surviving Jaredite (see Omni 1:21) was still alive some time after the Mulekites' arrival in America about 600 B.C. To account for 28 generations between 2200 B.C. and ca. 600 B.C., the average generation would already have to be 60 years apart. To make the "confusion of tongues" a thousand years (or more!) earlier (to account for the Chinese, Egyptians and Sumerians of ca. 4000 B.C.), every Jaredite father listed in the genealogy would have had to be over 120 years old before fathering his oldest child.

            Notice also that among the "Jaredite" generations listed in Ether 1 are two Hebrew names, "Aaron" (1:15-16) and "Levi" (1:20-21). One must ask how such Hebrew names appeared in America, when the Jaredites did not speak Hebrew, but rather a language which had not been confounded.

            Most Christians (except for the fundamentalist / evangelical inerrantists) can accept the mythical nature of the Tower of Babel story. They can read it as allegory, an object lesson about human pride. But Mormons must (and do) accept it as literal and historical.

            "Sabaoth"       This Hebrew term occurs twice in the KJV New Testament (Rom 9:29 and James 5:4) in the phrase "Lord of Sabaoth," where the authors did not translate the Hebrew word, but merely wrote it in Greek letters. This is probably why the KJV translaters also left it in its original Hebrew form. The word occurs several hundred times in the Hebrew Old Testament, where it is translated (correctly) as "hosts", in the phrase "Lord of Hosts." The word is Hebrew 'saba' (sade - beth - aleph) and means "host [military], warfare, service." The plural is made by adding the ordinary Hebrew plural ending '-oth': 'saba-oth'.

            But, according to Joseph Smith, D&C 95:7,

...the Lord of Sabaoth, which is by interpretation, the creator of the first day, the beginning and the end.

            But, according to Joseph Smith, in his "inspired" translation of Mark 13:22 (appearing in the JST at Mark 15:25), that is not what the word means: "...Golgotha, which is, (being interpreted,) The place of a burial."

            Not only is this a complete mistranslation, but it makes no sense, since no one was buried at Golgotha.

"evangelists"       The sixth "Article of Faith" says that Mormons believe in the "same organization that existed in the Primitive [New Testament] church..." and lists various offices of the primitive church, including "evangelists."

            "Evangelists" are mentioned only three times in the New Testament. Philip was an evangelist in Caesarea (Acts 21:8), but there is no hint as to why he was called that. Evangelists are listed among other callings (prophets, teachers, pastors, apostles) at Ephesians 4:11, without defining what an evangelist is. But Paul hints at what an evangelist is in 2 Timothy 4:1-5, where it seems clear that an evangelist is one who works at spreading the Gospel. Since the Greek word for "gospel" is 'euangelion' and the verb meaning "to preach the gospel" is 'euangelizein', clearly the Greek word for "evangelist" (euangelistes) means "preacher of the gospel."

            However, Joseph Smith declared: "An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 151) He goes on to say that the function of a "patriarch" in the Mormon church is to give blessings. It is not primarily to preach or to spread the gospel.

            There are thus two problems with the "evangelists" of the sixth "Article of Faith." First, Joseph Smith gave a completely new meaning to the word, justified neither scripturally nor linguistically. And second, there is no such title or office in the Mormon church. (The Reorganized LDS Church, now renamed "Community of Christ" at least calls their patriarchs "evangelists," but they are no more correct linguistically than the Mormons.)

"seal", "bind", "loose"       Mormons use the word "seal" and "sealing" to refer to the ritual by which they claim to bind forever together in familial relationships husband with wife and parents with children. This is one of the major purposes of the Mormon temple ceremonies.

            There are many Biblical passages with the word "seal," but they all refer to marking something with a seal, as the ancient equivalent of a signature, to indicate its authenticity or its completion (e.g Isa 8:16, Jer 32:10-11) or to close up a writing so that unauthorized persons could not open it without revealing their intrusion (e.g Isa 29:11, Dan 9:24, 12:4, 9). There is no biblical reference to sealing by a priest as a religious ritual. The only religiously significant sealing is done directly by God, and then it is in the sense of marking or identifying or certifying something (Rom. 4:11, 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30; Rev. 13:16-18). The Book of Mormon also uses "seal" in this sense Mosiah 5:15 (by God) and Alma 34:35 (by the devil).

            In Mormonism, however, "seal" has taken on this new and unprecedented meaning of "joining together permanently." The American Heritage Dictionary acknowledges that the Mormons have given this word a special (and otherwise unknown) meaning. Under that verb, after listing its usual meanings (1. to affix a seal; 2. to close up; 3. to certify; 4. to determine) an additional meaning:

5. Mormon Church. To make binding for life; to solemnize forever, as a marriage.

            The Mormons see the authorization for their "sealing" to be the power that was given to Peter at Matt 16:19:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsover thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

            The word translated as "bind" in Matt 16:19 is the Greek word 'deo', and it means to "tie up [like a prisoner]," that is, to restrict someone's freedom, with a negative connotation. It is used in that meaning about thirty times in the New Testament. Paul uses it three times to refer to a person being bound by the law to the spouse, (Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:27, 39), but even in those three passages he is speaking of being restricted in contrast to being free.

            The Book of Mormon has the same passage as Matt 16:19, at Helaman 10:7, but changes "bind" to "seal." Joseph Smith's "inspired" translation is identical to the King James version of Matt 16:19.

"Pharaoh"

            The linguistic problem is that the word "pharaoh" originally meant "great house." It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C. That usage is unknown in Palestine until after 1000 B.C. According to Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, article "Pharaoh": "It is certain that in Abraham's time the kings of Egypt were not as yet called Pharaohs." At no time in Egypt was the word used as the actual name of any king. Of course, Genesis has the same anachronism (12:15), but no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham.

            There are multiple anachronisms here.

            "Chaldeans" do not appear in history until the 12th century B.C., quite a few centuries after Abraham lived. The earliest mention of them in historical records is in the 9th century B.C., in Assyrian records. It was not until 721 B.C. that they established themselves, by seizing the throne of Babylon, ultimately establishing a Chaldean dynasty in Babylonia, which ruled from 625 to 539 B.C. It is only after this that the term "Chaldea" or "land of the Chaldees" came to be used for "Babylon".

            This anachronism also occurs in Genesis (11:31), but, as noted above, no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham.

            There is no historical evidence that Egypt controlled any part of Mesopotamia at any time when Abraham might have lived. Thus, it is a gross error to claim that Egyptian sacrifices were taking place in "Chaldea" at a sacrificial place with an Egyptian name.

            The Greek name is a corruption of an Egyptian name for the capital city of Memphis, 'Hat-kaptah'. Perhaps the real name of Ham's wife was Hat-kaptah? No, because Abr 1:23 says that "Egypt" is a "Chaldean" word (see previous section on "Chaldea"), and it means "forbidden".

            The Hebrew word for Egypt and the Egyptians is 'Mizraim,' which adds to the confusion, because the Bible says that Mizraim was a son of Ham (Gen 10:6, 13) and the ancestor not of the Egyptians, but of the Philistines.

            Do these Hebrew words provide weighty evidence in defense of the Book of Abraham? Hardly. At the time Smith was producing the Book of Abraham he was also intently studying Hebrew with a private tutor.

            Here, too, Joseph Smith was perhaps trying to be too clever: Abraham lived at a time long before the Hebrew language had even developed. According to the article "Hamito-Semitic Languages" in The Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macr 8:592, Hebrew did not develop until the 13th century BC. Thus, Abraham could not possibly have spoken Hebrew.

            This literary device was discovered in the Bible in the 19th century, and Mormon apologists discovered it then also in the Book of Mormon. They present this as evidence that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired, since chiasm had not yet been recognized in the Bible when Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon.

            Chiasm loses all of its persuasiveness as evidence for the divinity of the Book of Mormon when one realizes that it is a literary device which can occur quite naturally in non-divine writings as well, and that an author need not be consciously aware of the device, nor know its name, to make literary use of it. Joseph Smith's diary, for example, does not claim to be divinely inspired nor to be an ancient document, yet the entry for April 1, 1834, is an excellent example of chiasm:

A  the Lord shall destroy him
   B  who has lifted his heel against me even that wicked man  Docter P. Hrlbut
       C  he [will] deliver him to the fowls of the heaven
              and
       c  his bones shall be cast to the blast of the wind
   b  [for] he lifted his [arm] against the Almity
a  therefore the Lord shall destroy him

            The third president of the church, John Taylor, used chiasm quite naturally, and no Mormon claims that the chiasm in his reflections are either evidence of divine inspiration or of ancient origin:

A  And He in His own person
   B  bore the sins of all,
      C  and atoned for them
         D  by the sacrifice of Himself,
            E  so there came upon Him the weight and agony
               F  of ages
               f  and generations,
            e  the indescribable agony consequent upon
         d  this great sacrificial
      c  atonement
   b  wherein He bore the sins of the world,
a  and suffered in His own person the consequences of an eternal   
   law of God broken by man

            A tongue-in-cheek article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 33 No. 4, Winter 2000, p 163, by Robert Patterson, "Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in 'Green Eggs and Ham'" demonstrated that the same arguments which Mormon apologists use to show that chiasm is evidence for the Book of Mormon can also show that Dr. Seuss' children's book "Green Eggs and Ham" is also ancient:

I am Sam.
Sam I am.

I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
  I do not like green eggs and ham.
    Would you like them here or there?
      I would not like them here or there.
    I would not like them anywhere.
  I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

            Mormonism's claims fail on many other fronts besides linguistics. But even a few of the gross linguistic errors as discussed here should be sufficient to show that Smith's claims are no more than the boastings of an ignorant (although charismatic) human being.