This article is part of a series: Top 6 Misquoted Bible Verses. Click here to visit the introduction article.
In 1830, a man named Joseph Smith published a book entitled "The Book of Mormon", the cornerstone of the Mormon religion. According to the official narrative, God and Jesus personally appeared to Joseph Smith, telling him that all the Christian denominations had become corrupt, and that he would be the prophet chosen to restore the true religion. Though it swears by its other texts (Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), it also asserts that the Bible, "as far as it is translated correctly", is still true. Because of this, much like other denominations, there is a certain amount of pressure upon Mormonism to conform to the Bible. Since this would demolish the Mormon Church, however, Mormons seek to instead conform the Bible to their doctrines. In this article, I will discuss the top 6 examples. Unless otherwise stated, all Bible citations in this article will be from the KJV, as this is the preferred translation of most Mormons, and is the officially accepted version within their faith.
Luke 2:4
Although it's rare to hear a Mormon actually cite Luke 2:4, I have chosen this verse because the Book of Mormon itself does so. Or rather, the modern version (as the original has been repeatedly changed) does so in the footnotes. This, I believe, is a very effective verse to highlight, as it instantly demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is very much not infallible.
In Alma 7:10, the Book of Mormon tells us that Jesus will be born to Mary at Jerusalem. The footnote attached to this verse cites Luke 2:4, which says "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)".
It is well known that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And in spite of all the inaccuracies seen in a typical depiction of the Nativity, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is not one of them. Both in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2), and here in the New, it is foretold and confirmed that Jesus' birthplace is Bethlehem.
The problem with Jesus being born in Bethlehem, and the book of Mormon citing the Bible's confirmation that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, is that Bethlehem is not in Jerusalem. These two cities are 5 miles apart from each other. Jesus, contrary to the claim of the Book of Mormon, was not born in Jerusalem.
Of course, realistically, this is a "small" error. If Joseph Smith merely claimed to be a pastor, or a scholar, or some kind of missionary, one could easily forgive this basic mistake. However, he claimed to be a hand chosen prophet of the Lord Himself, restoring the true faith to the Earth after the Great Apostasy, by way of creating an inspired translation of "the most correct book". "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book", he said. Therefore, a single error in the Book of Mormon is sufficient to topple the whole Mormon faith. Therefore, it is self-destructive for the modern Book of Mormon to footnote Luke 2:4 as a proof text for Alma 7:10.
Ezekiel 37:15-19
When I began online outreach to Mormons, this was the first verse ever cited to me. "Ezekiel 37:15-19: The stick of Ephraim is the Book of Mormon!", the young witness insisted. And well s/he should have, not because the text genuinely foretells the union of the Book of Mormon to the Bible, but because historically, leaders in their Church have said it does. For example, in the 1950 book "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder", LeGrand Richards, an Apostle of the Mormon Church, said "Until someone can explain where the record of Joseph is, the Book of Mormon stands unrefuted in its claim to be “the stick of Joseph.”"
The passage reads as follows: "The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand."
Reading this passage, no one who has not already been conditioned by Mormon philosophy would understand Richards' confident assertion. To begin with, while he says we must explain where the "record" of Joseph is, objective readers of the passage will wonder what the record of Joseph is? The word "record" appears a grand total of 0 times in the passage. In fact, it does not even appear in the book of Ezekiel at all. So why is he asking us to explain where the "record" of Joseph is?
The answer lies in the context of his question. "In ancient times it was the custom to write on parchment and roll it on a stick. Therefore, when this command was given, it was the equivalent of directing that two books or records should be kept", he says, and then proceeds to assert that the stick of Judah is the Bible, which remained with the Hebrews, while the stick of Joseph would remain separate, in another land, which he then argues can be none other than the Book of Mormon.
It turns out, however, "stick" means... well, "stick". The word is "ʿēṣ" (עֵץ), which is pronounced "ates". This word absolutely does not necessitate that there be any "record" involved, and indeed never means "record", or even "scroll", both of which there are Hebrew words we could realistically expect would be used.
To illustrate this, consider other passages in which the word is used. In 1 Kings 17:10-12, the widow was not gathering records for her and her son's last meals. And in 2 Kings 1:6, we can be fairly certain Elisha did not cut down a record to make the axe head float.
We see, then, that one must apply some serious mental gymnastics in order to suggest Ezekiel is talking about anything other than a stick. The stick of Judah is not the Bible of Judah, but the stick of Judah. In the same way, the stick of Joseph, in the hand of Ephraim, is the stick of Joseph, in the hand of Ephraim.
But what do these sticks mean? The standard interpretation, as it has been since long before Joseph Smith was born, and will remain so long after Mormonism has returned to whatever demonic slime pit vomited it out, is the reunion of the North and South kingdoms of Israel under a single Davidic leader (that, of course, being Jesus). How do I know this? Simple. Rather than stopping at verse 19, I expand my reading to verse 23:
"And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all. Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God."
And so we see that the sticks Ezekiel himself wrote on
became one in his hand, representing what God actually promised to do: Gather the children of Israel into one Kingdom, no longer divided into two nations. So, did Ezekiel himself write the Bible, or the Book of Mormon? No. The Bible has more than 40 different authors, and the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith. Do the sticks have to be records? No, you can easily write a small phrase on a stick. Are the Bible and the Book of Mormon two kingdoms? No, one is a true book inspired by God, the other is a false book written by Joseph Smith, and later edited by others in the Mormon Church.
Therefore, to quote Brian E. Keck, "...identifying the sticks of Ezekiel with Babylonian writing boards was a clever exegetical idea, but it does not hold up to a close inspection." This common, and official proof-text is therefore invalid.
2 Thessalonians 2:3
An important event in the Mormon religion is the so-called "Great Apostasy", a time in which the true gospel dissipated from the Earth, and the entire Christian faith became corrupted. This, supposedly, happened very early on in history, though Mormons struggle to determine exactly when. Nevertheless, it is essential to their religion: "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (B.H. Roberts, History of the Church).
It is quite a lofty claim to suggest that Christ and His Apostles were such miserable failures that their true message completely disappeared for more than 1700 years, and so if Mormons are to have any ground to stand upon, they must find evidence of it somewhere. And of course, they look to the Bible for that.
One such verse they cite is 2 Thessalonians 2:3: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;".
This is about the closest a Mormon apologist will ever get to telling the truth about the Bible, as 2 Thessalonians 2:3 genuinely does foretell of a "Great Apostasy". A time genuinely will come on this Earth when "...some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Of course, what they will neglect to tell you is that they, themselves, are apostate, according to the words of Timothy. Note how one "doctrine of devils" the apostates heed is the command to abstain from meats. The KJV is an anomaly here, since it is an archaic translation. It even calls plants "meat" (Genesis 1:30). But the correct term, in modern English, is "food", which of course is often paired with "drink".
The Bible is replete with claims that all food and drink is clean to those who, in Christ, consider them clean. If you want to eat a bacon sandwich, that's fine, we're no longer under the law. If you feel comfortable drinking, there is no sin in doing so, of course with the exception of exceeding the limits and getting drunk. If you want to drink coffee, that is 100% permissible.
But Mormonism is a significantly more restrictive faith. Whereas Christianity permits the consumption of all food and drink received with thanksgiving and a clear conscience, Mormonism teaches that wine, strong drink, and hot drinks are impermissible (Doctrines and Covenants 89:1-9). This is to the extent where the Mormon "Sacrament" (their equivalent of the Lord's Supper) is performed not with wine, nor even with grape juice, but with water.
This means Mormons are actually within the "some" whom the Spirit expressly says will depart from the faith. They give heed to demonic doctrines, they do not endure sound doctrine.
Furthermore, the Mormon version of the Great Apostasy has, in their eyes, already happened. Yet, when Paul speaks of this event, he does so in the context of saying it will happen, but not yet. Heretics were disturbing the Thessalonians, telling them Christ had already come, a fear the Thessalonians gave their ears to, as they were facing persecutions that seemed to them to be the wrath of God.
Therefore, Paul comforted them with the simple knowledge that the day of the Lord had not come, since there needs to be a falling away, and then the lawless one will be revealed. However, in order to claim the Great Apostasy has already happened, Mormons must argue that the lawless one must also have been revealed. Observe:
"That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."
You see, then, that when we read from verses 2-10, the Great Apostasy and the revelation of the lawless one are inextricably linked. The former will shortly precede the latter, in part because the Great Apostasy is also linked with the removal of "he who now letteth" is "taken out of the way". All of that to say that whereas the Mormon Great Apostasy would have to have happened roughly 1700 years before Mormonism was created, the Great Apostasy in 2 Thessalonians has yet to occur!
What's even worse for the Mormons is that Joseph Smith was supposedly met by the Father and Son together, thus meaning following this Great Apostasy, Jesus returned to the Earth. Yet, Scripture is replete with commands and warnings to not heed anyone who claims Christ has returned to the Earth. Most notably, Hebrews 1:13 tells us that Christ is sat at the right hand of the Father until He makes His enemies His footstool. Therefore, Jesus will not return to the Earth until Jesus returns to the Earth. And on that day, there will be no doubt. Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is the worst possible proof text Mormons can appeal to in defence of the mythical Great Apostasy.
Luke 22:32
Historically, of course owing to their belief that all Christian denominations are corrupt, Mormons have not always considered themselves to be a Christian denomination, nor did they accept Christians as a part of their religion. In the modern day, however, they have started claiming to be Christians, it's just that they are "privileged" enough to have access to the full, uncorrupted gospel, within the restored Church, possessing the authoritative priesthood, and following all of God's scriptures.
Of course, when a Christian meets a "Christian", it will be assumed they are "on the same level". That is, we don't typically try to convert each other. Personally, I have no denominational affiliations, but I don't run around telling Baptists, or Evangelicals, or Lutherans etc. that they need to convert. There are discussions to be had, and I certainly believe the absence of denominations is closer to Biblical Christianity, but unless there is some fatal heresy embedded into a denomination, I still see its followers as Christian, and have no need to convert them.
This made it seem strange to me when I first met Mormon missionaries, and they kept asking me to convert. If I'm a Christian, why would I need to convert to... Christianity? Of course, as I studied their religion more, I found out that they were asking me to convert from Christianity to their religion because their religion is not Christianity. But at the time, every time they sent new missionaries to talk to me, I would always ask them the same question: If I'm already a Christian, why would I need to convert?
This is where the Mormon brings in Luke 22:32. Speaking to Peter, who was already His devout follower, Jesus said "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." If Peter, who for all intents and purposes was a Christian, needed converting, why would we find it absurd for Mormons to ask us to convert?
The simplest and most obvious answer is that when we read from verses 31-34, we see that Jesus is not saying "you're a Christian now, but you'll be a Mormon soon". Rather, He is literally saying "the devil is about to make you deny me, but I've prayed for you; you're going to come back". This, of course, is fulfilled later on in John 21. Having denied Jesus 3 times before the rooster crowed, as was foretold here in Luke 22:31-34, Peter was thrice asked "...lovest thou me?...". And he of course answered in the affirmative, to which Jesus told him "Feed my lambs.", and then twice more "Feed my sheep."
Perhaps this is why more modern translations render this proof text "when you have returned to me", or some variation thereof. Peter isn't being told to become a Mormon. If he was, you can be sure Mormonism would at least be visible in his writings. But no, Mormonism appears nowhere in this world until the 1800s. Given that Peter was clearly not being told to convert to Mormonism, it makes no sense for Luke 22:32 to be used as a proof text for why Christians today should either.
Ecclesiastes 12:7
When Solomon said "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it", any Christian reading without Mormon biases will understand that he was not describing the pre-existence of the soul. For Mormons, however, this is proof of their pre-existence doctrine.
According to Mormonism, God and His many spirit wives produced us as their own spirit children in Heaven, where we dwelt with the Father already. Jesus, God's firstborn, and Satan, His (and our) spirit brother, disagreed on how the gospel should be carried out. Both wanted to be the savior of mankind, but whereas Satan wanted to eliminate man's freedom to choose, Jesus wanted mankind to be allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not we would follow the Father's plan of salvation. A council was called, and we were all tasked with deciding whose plan was preferable. Two thirds of us agreed with Jesus' plan, and were granted mortality, through which we can progress to Godhood. Satan, and the remaining third of spirits who sided with him, were denied mortality.
You won't see any of that in Ecclesiastes, or indeed anywhere in the Bible. In fact, Scripture makes it quite clear that the natural comes before the spiritual (1 Corinthians 15:46), and that God "...formeth the spirit of man within him." (Zechariah 12:1, emphasis mine).
Personally, as much as the rest of Scripture militates against pre-existence, I find it most effective to go slightly further back in Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes 9:5 tells us "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." Due to its unique, literally down-to-earth perspective, Ecclesiastes is not a clear book when it comes to the afterlife. It's quite bleak, truth be told, and the most spiritual thing about it is to credit God for all things, suggesting He is the only reason this futile life has any value at all. The spirit does indeed return to Him. But if you're going to claim, in stark contrast to the teachings of Paul or Zechariah, that this is because we were alive before we came to Earth, you are far more locked in to the idea that we are dead when we leave it. Just as Ecclesiastes 9:5 is not evidence for Annihilationism, neither is Ecclesiastes 12:7 a valid proof text for Premortality.
1 Corinthians 15:40-41
As we have just shown, 1 Corinthians 15 actually contains pretty solid evidence against the beginning half of the Mormon gospel, as the existence of the soul prior to the existence of the body is not compatible with Paul's claim that "...that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1 Corinthians 15:46). This, as with any heretic, is a common theme with Mormons. Small quotes of Scripture seem supportive of their view, larger citations refute them.
But a small segment Mormons believe supports their view of Heaven is 1 Corinthians 15:40-41: "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."
The first and most obvious problem with the Mormon interpretation is that while it does speak of the "terrestrial" and "celestial", the mythical "telestial" kingdom is completely absent, both from this passage, and from the entirety of Scripture. Citing this verse is clearly a move of desperation for Mormons, seeking to find their Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms in the Bible.
In reality, rather than being names of Kingdoms, these three words are actually present even in the secular world. Celestial means "heaven", which may, as in the Scriptures, refer to either the Kingdom of Heaven, or simply "the heavens", as in "the heavens and the earth". That is why, even to this day, we refer to the sun, moon, stars, and planets, as "celestial bodies. Similarly, terrestrial simply means "Earth", which is why we call aliens "extra terrestrial" beings. Even the word telestial has its roots in the Latin word "tele", which means far away. This is why we have things like "telescopes".
With this in mind, we should not be surprised to find the words "celestial" and "terrestrial" in an English Bible. They're English words that describe the very concept Paul is actually describing. Starting in verse 35, Paul asserts "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?", an objection to resurrection that Paul says is really quite foolish.
Note, then, how the objection Paul anticipates does not even merit the Mormon interpretation. Throughout history, and even to this very day, people have had strange views on this topic. The ancient Egyptians believed your body had to be preserved in a certain way in order to enter the afterlife. Muhammad, the so-called prophet of Islam, was buried in a shallow grave, from which the ancient Muslims believed he would eventually rise. Even to this day, many Christians have to be assured that if they die at sea, or if they get cremated, or basically anything that results in their body being "defiled" in some way (e.g. organ donation), their eternal lives will not be affected.
To that, Paul is not going to say "well, there's two kingdoms... and I'll conveniently fail to mention the third". That doesn't answer the question at all. The question is "how are the dead raised up, and with what body?" In other words, wherever they end up, how do they end up there? It's no good saying "oh, well there's a Celestial kingdom and a Terrestrial kingdom", because that does not explain how the dead are raised, or in what body they will come.
But Paul's actual answer does. Using various analogies, Paul shows that there is a difference between our mortal and immortal bodies, just as there is a difference between man, beast, fish, and bird (v39). Then he says "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (v42-44).
You see, then, that in order to claim that Paul is talking about the three kingdoms of Heaven, you must remove verses 40-41 from its context, in which it describes two types of body. He is saying yes, there will be a resurrection, and the body in which we are raised will be different from the body in which we die. This body dies. It's not even that difficult for it to do. How so many of us reach 70 years old is a divine mystery. But the next one will be invincible. This, therefore, is a terrible and desperate attempt at a proof text.
Conclusion
As Mormonism was only invented in the 19th century, one should not expect it to entirely fit in with a 2,000 year old, divinely inspired book. Nevertheless, due to the credibility Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young after him, ascribed to the Bible, it is impossible for Mormons to escape its gravity. If the Bible is false, Mormonism is false, because its so-called prophets said it is true. If the Bible is true, Mormonism is false, because no matter how hard they try, they will never be able to make the Mormon religion fit into it.