EVALUATING TRUTH

There are many religions and many philosophies in the world today. Which one is true? They cannot all be true because many of them contradict each other. Simple logic tells us that two statements cannot both be true and contradict each other at the same time.

Hence, we're left to decide for ourselves how to determine what is true. Most people decide what is true by their feelings or by what makes sense to them. Yet this is a very unreliable way to determine truth because many different individuals arrive at different conclusions based on what their feelings say to them and based on what makes sense to them. We're in the same position: who is right?

The best way to evaluate truth is to objectively analyze the evidence. God has given each of us a rational mind to accomplish this. In fact, this is how a jury decides whether someone is guilty or not. They don't take a poll to see how everyone feels, they evaluate the evidence that is presented and they come to a conclusion. If the weight of evidence indicates that the defendant is likely guilty, then a guilty verdict is rendered. However, if the evidence does not tend to indicate guilt or if there is some doubt, then a not guilty verdict is rendered.

EVALUATING CHRISTIANITY

Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, which has been demonstrated to be one of the most accurately preserved, reliable books of antiquity. Consider these facts concerning the Bible:

• The Dead Sea scrolls, found in 1947, were dated around 150-200 B.C. Previously, our earliest Old Testament manuscripts dated around 900 A.D. When the older Dead Sea scrolls were compared with our much later manuscripts, they were nearly identical. This demonstrates that remarkable care was taken to preserve the integrity of the documents as they were transmitted over the years. Additionally, it refutes charges that errors were introduced through the transmission of the documents. {1}
  

• The earliest New Testament manuscripts we have all date within about 100-200 years of the time of their writings. {2}
  

• Roughly 24,000 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts exist for the New Testament. This is staggering compared to other ancient writings. {3}
  

• Even if we did not have any New Testament manuscripts, the entire New Testament (except for about 11 verses) could still be reconstructed through the extensive quotations of the early church fathers. {4}
  

• The Bible has been demonstrated over and over to be incredibly accurate as an historical document. Not only have the events been corroborated by outside sources (such as Flavius Josephus), but archaeology has proven the many places and people in the Bible to be historical. {5}

Many religious groups claim that they are a "restoration" of the original church. Their arguments typically go something like this:

The form and/or doctrine of the original church has been lost. The current state of Christianity is apostate in its doctrine. Our church (or religion) is restoring the church and its doctrine to its original form.

Among the many groups that make this claim are: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and the International Church of Christ movement.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that no evidence exists to corroborate the charge that the church fell into apostasy during the first century or at any time later. While there have been offshoots of Christianity that have strayed from the faith, we can document historically when these groups appeared and how their doctrine developed.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that the Christian church became apostate soon after the death of the apostles. To prove such a claim would require evidence that the original teachings of the church are the same as the doctrine of the new group.

For example, Mormons claim that the Christian church became apostate soon after the death of the apostles. Consequently, Mormonism claims that the doctrine of the church was altered. Mormonism allegedly restores the doctrine of the church to the original teachings of the apostles. However, to date no evidence can be produced to demonstrate that the apostles ever taught anything even remotely resembling Mormonism. No evidence has ever been produced because no evidence exists. It is simply an open charge with nothing to substantiate it.

EVALUATING MORMONISM

The truth of Mormonism depends ENTIRELY on the testimony of Joseph Smith. In most cases, his testimony cannot be corroborated. Consider these facts concerning Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon:

• Joseph Smith claimed that the Lord appeared to him and told him that all the churches were an abomination. Therefore, he was being commissioned to restore the church. Yet no evidence can be produced to show that an apostasy has occurred. Note: verses in the Bible that predict an apostasy do not prove that an apostasy has occurred. In order for a valid restoration to occur, it must be demonstrated from historical evidence that the original church's theology is the same as the new "restored" church. Otherwise, a "restoration" is unnecessary.
  

• Joseph Smith claimed to produce the Book of Mormon from gold plates found buried in a hill in New York State. We cannot corroborate his claim because no plates have ever been produced for the public to see. In contrast, Biblical manuscripts can be seen and observed by any one who so desires.
  

• Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was translated by "the power of God" and that God told him that the translation was correct. Subsequent church leaders also claimed that it was the most correct book ever written. Yet the book of Mormon has nearly 4000 changes from the original 1830 version to today's current version. This would not be expected from a book that was originally translated not by man but by "the power of God". {6}
  

• The book of Mormon contains many word for word plagiarisms from the King James version of the Bible. {7} This is alarming since the Book of Mormon was allegedly written from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. while the King James version of the Bible was not written until 1611 A.D. It's also interesting to note that even the italicized words in the King James version of the Bible found their way into the Book of Mormon. The italicized words were not in the original manuscripts but were added by the translators to provide clarity to the sentence. {8} How could a book translated by "the power of God" just happen to include these italicized words - words that were not from God but from men (the translators)?
  

• The Book of Mormon is supposedly an account of lost Jewish tribes who migrated to America. These tribes formed into 2 great nations. They increased in population and lived in huge, fortified cities. They were continually at war with one another until they killed each other off in a final, bloody conflict around 400 A.D. This conflict apparently took place near the location where the gold plates were found. With so many people and with such big cities, and with so much war, one would expect to find some evidence (i.e. cities, bones of people, weapons, etc.) Yet to date, NO archaeological evidence has EVER been produced to support the claims in the Book of Mormon. It's also interesting to note that respected archaeological societies such as the Smithsonian can find no relationship between the Book of Mormon's account of the America's and the archaeological record. Even Mormon anthropologists are forced to admit that the evidence is lacking. {9}
  

• In contrast is the Bible, which has been demonstrated over and over again to be incredibly accurate historically. Something in the neighborhood of 25,000 places and people mentioned in the Bible have been confirmed through archaeology. {10} This gives tremendous credibility to the Bible and casts serious doubt on the Book of Mormon.
  

• Mormon scriptures also contradict themselves. The Book of Mormon originally taught one God, while later scriptures taught plural Gods. {11} Polygamy was condemned then taught. {12} God was taught to be a spirit, then later was said to have a body. {13} Many other contradictions exist. How can we be expected to believe teachings that contradict themselves?
  

• Everything in Mormonism stems from Joseph Smith who claimed to be a prophet of God. Now many other religions also make this claim. For example, in Islam, Mohammed claims to have received revelation from God. Also, in the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'lla claims to have also received revelation from God. Both claimed to be prophets and claimed to have new, accurate information regarding God and his people. How are we to know who is correct? If we take Joseph Smith at his word, shouldn't we also take Mohammed at his word, and then Baha'u'lla at his word?
  

  Of course that would be foolish because since their teachings contradict one another, we know that they can't all be right. There must be a way then to determine whether or not someone really is a prophet of God. There is. In Deuteronomy 18:20-22, God gives us the litmus test. The test is that if someone claims to be a prophet of God, he must be 100% accurate in the things he predicts. There are NO exceptions. This makes sense since God cannot lie.
  

  This is the only way that we can separate the prophets from the pretenders. Joseph Smith fails this test miserably. He once predicted that the US government would be overthrown in the 1800's. {14} That didn't happen. Therefore, he is a false prophet and according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22, we should not listen to him. He also predicted that the New Jerusalem would be built in Missouri during his generation. {15} Any way you slice it, his generation has passed and since it didn't happen, he is proven beyond doubt to be a false prophet.
  

  Brigham Young also made false prophecies. He claimed that the Civil War would not end slavery. {16} It did. He is a false prophet. He also claimed that there are inhabitants on the sun and moon. {17} That is obviously untrue. He is a false prophet.
  

• Another interesting fact concerns Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham. In 1966, some of the manuscripts he used to make the translation resurfaced. They were subsequently given to leading Egyptologists to verify that Joseph Smith's translation was correct. When translated by these scholars, Joseph Smith's translation was proven to be false. In fact, it wasn't even close, proving that Joseph Smith just made it all up. It was later demonstrated that the manuscripts were ancient pagan documents (such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead). {18}

What will you do with this evidence?