Testing the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham

What you'll learn

Explain the Moroni 10:3-5 challenge and why Scripture, not a subjective feeling, is the God-given test of revelation.
Summarise the main historical questions about the Book of Mormon (archaeology, DNA) fairly, including official LDS responses.
Present the Book of Abraham papyri issue accurately, including the church's Gospel Topics essay.

The Moroni promise

Missionaries will usually invite you to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. Moroni 10:4 says that if you ask God “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” Many members describe this as a peaceful feeling or a “burning in the bosom”, language taken from D&C 9:8.

This is the heart of LDS epistemology (how they believe they know truth). For most members, testimony rests on this spiritual witness rather than on history or argument. That is why historical evidence alone rarely moves them, and why you must address the method itself.

Gently note the framing: if you pray and do not receive a witness, the implication is that you lacked sincerity or real intent. The test cannot fail; it can only blame the person who prays.

Explain the Moroni promise and why the lesson says "the test cannot fail".Show answer

Moroni 10:4 promises that if you ask God with a sincere heart, real intent and faith in Christ, he will show you the truth of the Book of Mormon by the Holy Ghost, often described as a burning in the bosom. For most members testimony rests on this witness rather than history or argument. But if someone prays and receives no witness, the implication is that they lacked sincerity or real intent, so the test can only blame the person praying.

Moroni 10:4: pray with real intent
burning in the bosom (D&C 9:8)
testimony rests on feeling
failure blamed on the person

How God tells us to test revelation

Christians do not deny that the Spirit gives assurance (Rom 8:16). But Scripture never tells us to pray about whether a new revelation is true. It tells us to test it by what God has already revealed.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 warns that even a prophet whose sign comes true must be rejected if he leads people to other gods, ones they have not known. Galatians 1:8 says even an angel from heaven preaching another gospel is accursed. Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if Paul's message was so. 1 John 4:1 says “test the spirits”. Jeremiah 17:9 warns the heart is deceitful.

Ask: “If I prayed about adultery and felt peace, would that make it right?” Most will say no, because God has spoken in Scripture. Then the same principle applies to the Book of Mormon's claims and especially to the doctrine of God in later LDS revelation.

This is the sufficiency of Scripture you met in Know Your Faith, Lesson 1, and The Reliable Word, Lesson 3: God has already given the standard by which every later claim is tested.

How does Scripture tell us to test a new revelation, and how does the adultery question make the point?Show answer

Scripture never tells us to pray about whether a new revelation is true; it tells us to test it by what God has already revealed. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 rejects even a prophet whose sign comes true if he leads to other gods, Galatians 1:8 curses another gospel, and the Bereans examined the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). If praying about adultery and feeling peace would not make it right, because God has spoken, then the same principle applies to the Book of Mormon.

test by existing revelation
Deut 13; Gal 1:8; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1
the heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9)
adultery example

Historical questions: archaeology and DNA

The Book of Mormon describes large civilisations in the Americas with cities, wars involving hundreds of thousands, steel swords, horses, chariots, wheat, barley and coinage-like measures. Critics note that mainstream archaeology of the pre-Columbian Americas has not identified Book of Mormon places, names or peoples, and some items such as horses and chariots are not attested in the right period. Even the location is disputed among LDS scholars; many now favour a limited Mesoamerican setting rather than the whole hemisphere.

DNA studies of Native American populations point overwhelmingly to Asian ancestry, not Near Eastern. The church's Gospel Topics essay “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” (2014) responds that the Lehite group was probably small and entered a land already populated, so their DNA could be swamped over time by founder effects, bottlenecks and genetic drift. In 2006 (first in a Doubleday edition, then in church printings) the introduction to the Book of Mormon was changed from describing the Lamanites as “the principal ancestors” of the American Indians to “among the ancestors”.

LDS apologists also point to possible convergences: a place called NHM in Arabia that might match “Nahom” (1 Nephi 16:34), Hebrew-like literary structures such as chiasmus (a mirrored A-B-C-B-A pattern of ideas, found in Hebrew poetry; e.g. Alma 36), and the testimony of the witnesses. Represent these fairly. Your aim is not to win a debate on Mesoamerican archaeology, but to show that the Book's claims are testable and that the church's own explanations have shifted.

What archaeological questions does the lesson raise about the Book of Mormon, and how have LDS scholars adjusted?Show answer

The book describes large civilisations with cities, huge wars, steel swords, horses, chariots, wheat and barley. Critics note that mainstream archaeology has not identified Book of Mormon places, names or peoples, and items like horses and chariots are not attested in the right period. Even the location is disputed, and many LDS scholars now favour a limited Mesoamerican setting.

large civilisations described
places, names, peoples not identified
horses and chariots not attested
shift to limited Mesoamerican setting

How has the church responded to DNA studies, and why is the 2006 introduction change significant?Show answer

DNA studies point overwhelmingly to Asian ancestry for Native Americans. The church's 2014 essay says Lehi's group was probably small, entered a land already populated, and its DNA could be swamped by founder effects, bottlenecks and drift. In 2006 the introduction changed the Lamanites from "the principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" of the American Indians, showing that the church's own explanations have shifted.

DNA points to Asian ancestry
essay: small group, DNA swamped
"principal" to "among the ancestors"
explanations have shifted

The Book of Abraham papyri

In 1835 a group of Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, bought four Egyptian mummies and several papyrus scrolls from a travelling exhibitor, Michael Chandler. Joseph said some of the papyri contained the writings of Abraham, and his translation was later published and canonised in the Pearl of Great Price, including three facsimiles with his interpretations.

The papyri were thought lost in the Chicago fire of 1871, but fragments were rediscovered at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and given to the church in 1967. Egyptologists, including Latter-day Saint Egyptologists, identify them as standard funerary texts (such as a Book of Breathings made for a priest named Hor, and Book of the Dead fragments) dating, in the church's own words, to between the third century BC and the first century AD, many centuries after Abraham. They do not contain the text Joseph published, and his explanations of the facsimiles do not match standard Egyptological readings.

The church's Gospel Topics essay “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” (2014) acknowledges that the fragments do not match the text of the Book of Abraham. It suggests either that the relevant portion of the papyri is lost (Joseph had much more papyrus than survives), or that the papyri “catalyzed” a process in which God gave Joseph a revelation about Abraham, so that they were a catalyst rather than a source text in the ordinary sense (a view the essay says “assumes a broader definition” of translation). Present both options honestly. Then ask: if “translation” here may not mean translation, how should we understand the claim that the Book of Mormon was translated?

Summarise what the surviving Book of Abraham papyri are, according to Egyptologists and the church's essay.Show answer

Fragments rediscovered in 1967 are identified by Egyptologists, including LDS ones, as standard funerary texts such as a Book of Breathings for a priest named Hor and Book of the Dead fragments. They date, in the church's own words, to between the third century BC and the first century AD, centuries after Abraham. They do not contain the text Joseph published, and his facsimile explanations do not match standard readings.

funerary texts (Book of Breathings, Book of the Dead)
3rd c. BC to 1st c. AD
do not contain the published text
facsimiles don't match

What two explanations does the church's essay give, and what question does the lesson suggest asking afterwards?Show answer

The essay suggests either that the relevant portion of the papyri is lost, since Joseph had more papyrus than survives, or that the papyri catalysed a revelation about Abraham, so they were a catalyst rather than a source text, which assumes a broader definition of translation. Present both honestly. Then ask: if translation here may not mean translation, how should we understand the claim that the Book of Mormon was translated?

missing portion theory
catalyst theory
present both honestly
implications for Book of Mormon translation

Keeping the main thing the main thing

Historical problems can be genuine stones in the shoe, and some ex-members say they began to question when they read the church's own essays. But many Latter-day Saints have heard these issues before and have been taught that faith trumps evidence. Use them sparingly and kindly.

Do your homework before you raise them. Read the relevant Gospel Topics essay first, so you can say, “Your church's own essay says...” rather than quoting a critic. If you are asked about something you have not studied, say so, and offer to look into it together. Honesty about the limits of your knowledge builds more trust than a confident but shaky claim, and a Latter-day Saint who has been told critics lie will notice the difference.

Always bring the conversation back to the questions that matter most: Who is God? Who is Jesus? How is a sinner made right with God? The goal is not to leave a person with nothing, but to show them a better foundation: the sufficient, tested, God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) and the Christ it reveals.

Why does the lesson say historical problems should be used sparingly, and what should always be the main thing?Show answer

Many Latter-day Saints have heard these issues and been taught that faith trumps evidence, so they should be raised sparingly, kindly and only after reading the church's own essay. If you have not studied something, say so honestly, since a confident but shaky claim loses trust. Always return to who God is, who Jesus is and how a sinner is made right with God, offering the better foundation of Scripture and the Christ it reveals.

many have heard it before
do homework; cite their essays
admit the limits of your knowledge
return to God, Jesus, salvation

In their own words

“If you ask God with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Moroni 10:4-5)

“If it is right, I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” (D&C 9:8)

“The Book of Mormon's account is consistent with DNA evidence once the small size of the Lehite group and genetic drift are taken into account.” (Gospel Topics essay “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” (2014))

“The papyri may have served as a catalyst for revelation, and the Book of Abraham's truth rests on careful study and a spiritual witness.” (Gospel Topics essay “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” (2014))

Key texts

Deuteronomy 13:1-5: Even a prophet with fulfilled signs is false if he teaches other gods; doctrine is the test.
Galatians 1:8: An angel from heaven preaching another gospel is accursed; relevant to the Moroni narrative.
Acts 17:11: The Bereans tested an apostle's teaching by examining the Scriptures daily, not by a feeling.
1 John 4:1: Test the spirits, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful; feelings, however sincere, cannot be the final test of truth.
2 Timothy 3:16-17: Scripture is God-breathed and sufficient to equip the believer; it is the standard by which new claims are tested.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“You can't know spiritual truth through intellect alone. The Holy Ghost testifies, and I know the Book of Mormon is true.”Show a response

I agree that the Holy Spirit gives deep assurance; Romans 8:16 says the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children. I don't doubt your experience is real to you. But the question is how God tells us to test a new revelation. Scripture's answer is consistent: compare it with what God has already said (Deut 13:1-5; Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8). The Spirit who inspired the Bible will not contradict it. Feelings can be powerful, but people in many religions report the same kind of peace about contradictory books. If your feeling and Isaiah 43:10 disagree about whether there are other gods, which one should give way? Would you be willing to test the Book's teachings about God by the Bible?

“There is evidence for the Book of Mormon. NHM in Yemen matches Nahom, and Alma 36 has a complex chiasmus Joseph couldn't have known about.”Show a response

Those are interesting points, and I want to treat them fairly. NHM is a tribal name found in inscriptions in Yemen, and it is a genuine convergence worth considering. Chiasmus also appears in Alma 36. But two caveats. First, chiasmus also appears in the King James Bible Joseph knew well, and in other texts, so it can be imitated. Second, a few convergences must be weighed against the larger picture: no Book of Mormon cities, names or languages have been identified, many anachronisms remain, and DNA has required the church to adjust its claims. The Bible has hundreds of verified places and people. Even if I granted every convergence, the deeper question would remain: does the Book's God match the God of the Bible?

“The Book of Abraham was a revelation. The papyri were a catalyst, like when Joseph revised the Bible by revelation. You're judging it by a narrow definition of translation.”Show a response

I appreciate the church's essay acknowledging that the fragments don't match. But consider what Joseph claimed. The Book of Abraham's heading says it was translated from papyri and written by Abraham's own hand. Joseph also gave specific interpretations of the facsimiles, labelling figures in ways Egyptologists, including LDS Egyptologists, say are incorrect. If the papyri were a catalyst, then the word “translation” meant something different from what everyone at the time understood. That raises a further question: if we can test this translation claim against the original and it fails, how confident should we be in the Book of Mormon translation, where the plates are not available to check? I'm asking sincerely: how does this affect your trust in the prophetic claims?

“The Bible has archaeological gaps too. You believe it by faith. Why demand proof from the Book of Mormon that you don't demand from the Bible?”Show a response

That's a fair challenge, and I don't want a double standard. Not every detail in the Bible has been confirmed by archaeology, and faith is never just a lab result. But there is a real difference in kind. The Bible's world is a known world: Jerusalem, Babylon and Nineveh are real places, and people like King Hezekiah and Pontius Pilate are attested outside Scripture. Biblical faith invites us to check because it claims to be rooted in history (Luke 1:1-4; 1 Cor 15:3-8). With the Book of Mormon, by contrast, LDS scholars still debate where its lands even were, and the church's own introduction changed from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors". I'm not asking for more from your book than from mine; I'm asking for the same kind of anchor in real places and peoples. Where would you point me?

“Eleven witnesses said they saw the gold plates, and their testimonies are printed in every Book of Mormon. Isn't that as strong as the apostles' witness to the resurrection?”Show a response

I respect that you take testimony seriously; Christianity does too. But consider two things. First, the three witnesses each became estranged from Joseph Smith and left the church for a time, and David Whitmer never returned. That doesn't prove they lied, but it is worth weighing. The apostles, by contrast, preached the resurrection under threat and kept preaching it to the end. Second, and more important, even a genuine sign does not settle whether a message is from God. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says that if a prophet's sign comes true but he leads you to other gods, you must not listen. Paul says even an angel preaching another gospel is accursed (Gal 1:8). So the deepest question is not whether someone saw plates, but whether the God of later LDS teaching is the God of Isaiah 44. Could we look at that together?

Written task

Write a 300-400 word response to the missionaries' invitation, “Read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, and the Holy Ghost will tell you it's true.” Explain why you will test it by Scripture, summarise one historical issue (DNA or the Book of Abraham) fairly including the church's response, and invite them to read a Bible passage with you.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Represents Moroni 10:3-5 and the LDS view of spiritual witness fairly.
Uses at least two biblical texts on testing revelation correctly.
Summarises one historical issue accurately and includes the official LDS response.
Avoids ridicule and overstatement.
Redirects to the central issues (God, Christ, gospel) and ends with an invitation.