We are going to look at a very specific claim: that the Book of Mormon story of baptism in Mosiah is just Joseph Smith copying Acts 2 – and that baptism for the remission of sins could not have existed before Jesus Christ, therefore the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. If this is true, Latter-day Saint scripture definitely collapses. If it is not, then this criticism is built on a very sandy foundation. Let’s actually examine to see if such a claim has any credibility and validity to truth or if it is a false claim.

Now, I am not asking you to take my own word for it. I am asking that we open up the scriptures, open up our hearts and minds because we are going to walk through Paul Gee’s argument, steelman it, and then test it against scripture, history, and essential logic. By doing this, we can critically assess the merits of his claims and their implications for the understanding of both the Book of Mormon and biblical texts.

This is not an attack on Paul. In fact, he reached out and asked me to read it as it will supposedly prove that the Book of Mormon is false. And I will quote him fairly, present his argument in its strongest form, and will show how I believe it fails – scripturally, historically, and logically. By carefully dissecting the specifics of his argument, we can delve deeper into the theological and historical context of baptism and its significance within both texts.

Understanding that baptism as a practice existed in various forms before Christ and that the concept of a remission of sins is not exclusively tied to any one scripture, we must analyze whether the Old Testament precedents and the teachings of Christ later broaden our comprehension of baptism. This exploration will hopefully shed new light on claims made against the Book of Mormon, fostering a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the narrative within its pages.

As we navigate through this intricate discussion, I invite all readers to remain open-minded and reflect critically on the scriptures, drawing personal insights even as we engage with challenging interpretations. A sincere examination can lead us to a deeper faith and understanding of these profound spiritual texts.

The premise for this response came by way of a Facebook dialogue at a Latter-day Saint Facebook group regarding the Book of Mormon. He provided a comment regarding a meme promoting three of his published books. I challenged him, and he requested that I read either one of them, even after I posted his meme with a stamped textual overlay stating his publications are false.

Paul Gee had privately messaged me, stating that I ought to read his book as the Book of Mormon is false.

Summation of Paul Gee’s claim

In his book, Book of Mormon Contradictions, Paul Gee attempts to argue that “The Book of Mormon is placed in the courtroom of scrutiny, with the Bible as the source of truth; each individual verse in the Book of Mormon is sufficiently put on trial.” This is indeed a bold claim that deserves the same level of rigorous scrutiny and examination that he applies to the Scriptures. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that Paul Gee’s claims against the Book of Mormon, alongside the supposed contradictions he identifies, are also subject to a multifaceted analysis. When he concludes that certain elements are false, this assertion must undergo the same rigorous standard of evaluation that he insists upon for the text in question. The implications of his arguments extend beyond mere textual analysis; they provoke critical discussions about the nature of religious texts and the subjective lenses through which we interpret them. If we are to engage fully with his work, we must explore not only the claims but also the philosophical backdrop that informs both his perspective and that of those who support or oppose the Book of Mormon, thereby enriching the discourse surrounding faith and interpretation.

This is very important, as we do not want to be led astray through a fictional book that is said to be scripture. In saying this, I have compared the verses in the Book of Mormon with the Bible and found that many verses disagree with the Biblical text. These verses will be looked over in great detail, in order to properly understand the issues we are dealing with. Instead of the two books complimenting each other, we see them contradicting one another in many ways. An in-depth analysis of the Book of Mormon shows a substantial amount of problems that cannot be denied. As you traverse through the chapters of this book, the problems in the Book of Mormon will be readily seen. These disparities come to life, seeing what the Bible actually teaches compared to the Book of Mormon. Most teachings are not the same. If they are, then they contradict the teachings in Mormonism.

Gee’s claim that the Book of Mormon “contradicts the Bible” rests on the assumption that his interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate one. But interpretation is not monolithic. Christians across centuries—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Restorationist—have disagreed on nearly every major doctrinal point, often while reading the same verses. To declare that the Book of Mormon “disagrees with the Bible” is, in reality, to declare that it disagrees with his reading of the Bible. That is a theological claim, not an objective contradiction.

When Gee asserts that the Book of Mormon contains “problems that cannot be denied,” he presents these issues as though they are universally recognized and academically settled. They are not. Many of the so‑called contradictions he identifies arise from selective proof‑texting, ignoring context, or flattening complex theological concepts into simplistic binaries. Others stem from misunderstandings of Latter-day Saint theology, or from reading LDS scripture through an Evangelical lens that the text itself does not claim to operate within.

Thus, before we can even begin evaluating his list of alleged contradictions, we must first evaluate the interpretive framework he uses to generate them. A flawed lens will always produce a distorted image.

In this light, the task before us is not merely to respond to individual verses or isolated claims, but to examine the underlying assumptions, interpretive methods, and theological commitments that shape Gee’s conclusions. Only then can we meaningfully assess whether his criticisms hold weight—or whether they collapse under the same scrutiny he insists upon applying to the Book of Mormon.

Claim 1 – Mosiah copies Acts 2: Mosiah’s baptism scene is “very similar” to Acts 2, so Joseph Smith must have rewritten Acts to create a fake Old Testament‑era church.

Claim 2 – No baptism before Christ: “Nobody was baptized in a church until Jesus set apart His church on earth.” Baptism for remission of sins begins with John the Baptist and Spirit‑baptism at Pentecost.

Claim 3 – No Old Testament knowledge of Christ’s atonement: People in 147–145 BC “would have known better than to baptize for the remission of sins, as Jesus had not been born or sacrificed yet,” and they could not have had detailed knowledge of His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Claim 4 – Therefore, The Book of Mormon is false: Because Mosiah shows organized baptism for remission of sins and knowledge of Christ before the New Testament, this must be Joseph Smith “attempting to make his book sound Biblical on paper,” not genuine scripture.

What Paul attempts to argue is that Mosiah looks like Acts 2, baptism for the remission of sins didn’t exist before Christ, and Old Testament – specifically Hebrews and Israelites did not know Christ’s atoning work in detail. And that this shows how the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible and therefore is false.

Steelmanning Paul Gee’s position

Let’s tighten up his argument and present an accurate understanding of his concern.

If God has given us a complete and sufficient record in the Bible, and that record shows baptism for remission of sins only beginning with John and the early church, then a book that inserts full‑blown Christian baptism and church structure centuries earlier looks suspicious. It could be an anachronistic forgery.

The legitimate instincts he is drawing from appears to be a concern for Biblical authority and sufficiency. Likewise, there is a suspicion of anachronism – reading later practices into earlier times. And there seems to be personal desire to protect the uniqueness of Christ’s atoning work in history.

These may seem good instincts, and there is nothing wrong with them. If the Book of Mormon really contradicted the Bible on these points, I’d have a problem with it too. The question is: does it actually contradict the Bible, or does it simply go beyond what the Bible records while still fitting within a biblical framework?

Logical Fallacies in Paul’s Argument

Reading through the first chapter of his book, Paul appears to rely on the following logical fallacies regarding how he views the Book of Mormon being false and therefore contradictory to the Bible.

First, he appears to engage in the fallacy known as argument from silence. He is claiming that because the Old Testament does not describe baptism for remission of sins the way the New Testament does, it therefore did not exist. However, absence of detailed description ≠ proof of non-existence. The fact is that scripture often alludes to practices we know more about from history and archaeology, highlighting an important nuance that Paul seems to overlook.

For instance, practices like synagogue structure, mikva’ot, and Second Temple ritual immersions are integral aspects of Jewish worship during biblical times. While these practices may not be explicitly detailed in the Old Testament, archaeological findings and historical texts provide substantial evidence of their existence and significance. This indicates that just because a specific practice or rite isn’t elaborately described in one part of scripture does not mean it’s entirely absent from the religious landscape of the time.

The argument from silence can be particularly misleading when discussing ancient texts, as the absence of a mention does not eliminate the likelihood of such traditions being practiced. Historical context and the evolution of ecclesiastical practices should be considered, as these factors offer a broader understanding of how religious rites may have developed over time. Thus, Paul’s assertion that the lack of mention in the Old Testament equates to the non-existence of baptism raises questions about the soundness of his reasoning and potentially undermines the complexity and richness of historical religious practices. By overlooking these elements, he risks fostering an incomplete and inaccurate interpretation of both the Old Testament and the New Testament concerning baptism.

The second logical fallacy is a false dichotomy of Old Testament vs. New Testament baptisms. He makes an assumption that either baptism is entirely absent before John, or it is fully formed exactly as in Acts 2. However, such a viewpoint neglects the rich historical and theological context surrounding the practice of baptism throughout various periods. Here is the reality: there is a continuum – Jewish ritual immersions, which served as a crucial part of purification practices in the ancient culture, followed by proselyte baptism for Gentiles wishing to join the Jewish faith, and prophetic anticipation of cleansing that reflects the longing for a new covenant, then John’s baptism as a call to repentance and preparation for the coming of the Messiah, and ultimately culminating in Christian baptism in Christ’s name, which embodies the fulfillment of these earlier traditions and symbolizes a transformative relationship with God.

Paul Gee relies on the common fallacy that all gainsayers rely upon, and that is begging the question about “church.” He does this by defining “church” so narrowly to a post-Pentecost standpoint that any earlier covenant community with ordinances is ruled out by definition, which consequently limits the understanding and richness of the biblical narrative. However, the New Testament itself speaks of Israel as the church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38, KJV), illustrating that the concept of church extends beyond the events following Pentecost and encompasses a broader historical and spiritual context. Likewise, Hebrews treats Israel’s wilderness experience as typological of Christian salvation (Hebrews 3-4), indicating that the journey of the Israelites, with its trials and divine guidance, serves as a framework for comprehending the significance of salvation in the New Testament. This broader interpretation challenges the restrictive view that seeks to diminish the continuity between the Old and New Covenants, providing a richer understanding of God’s plan across biblical history.

The fourth and final fallacy that is apparent in Paul Gee’s claim is poisoning the well. He ends the chapter with a prayer that pretty much labels Latter-day Saints as deceived and in need of deliverance from false beliefs, before the argument has actually been vetted and scrutinized. This framing of the discussion creates a significant emotional bias, as it casts a shadow over any potential arguments or evidence that could be presented in favor of the Book of Mormon, rendering them susceptible to preconceived notions of deception. By categorizing the beliefs of Latter-day Saints in such a derogatory manner, it not only undermines the credibility of their faith but also discredits the validity of any scholarly discourse that may arise from their perspectives. Consequently, the reader may find themselves in a position where they are unable to approach the topic with an open mind, as the initial characterization skews their perception before they have had the chance to engage with the nuanced details and complexities of the arguments at hand. This fallacy not only limits constructive dialogue but also perpetuates an environment of misunderstanding between differing viewpoints.

Point-by-Point Refutation – Paul Gee and His Argumentation on Trial

Since Paul stated in the introduction that the Book of Mormon is on trial and will be scrutinized – here we will do the same. Having already established his strongest claims, what those claims are, and the logical fallacies employed; we are going to move forward and properly examine each claim methodically, structurally, and rationally. This examination will not only delve into the claims themselves but also consider the historical and cultural contexts in which they were made. We will explore the implications of these claims on both the believers and skeptics, highlighting how they resonate within contemporary discussions. By dissecting the evidence presented and the reasoning behind each argument, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of the text and its impact on religious thought and practice. Each claim will be scrutinized rigorously, ensuring a comprehensive analysis that respects differing perspectives while aiming for clarity and truth.

Mosiah is very similar to Acts 2, so Joseph Smith copied it

Let’s start with what Paul Gee says regarding this particular claim.

As we can see here, the story in Mosiah is very similar to what we see in Acts. It is like Joseph Smith took the story in Acts and rewrote it to match his story in the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, this story in the Book of Mormon is not scripture. There is no evidence to back it up either.

Similarity does not prove dependence. If it did, then many biblical passages would be dismissed because they echo earlier scripture or ancient patterns. God often reveals the same covenant pattern in different settings. Mosiah 18 is not a contradiction of the Bible. It fits a recurring biblical pattern: preaching, conviction, repentance, baptism, and the formation of a covenant people.

We see that pattern in Acts 2, where Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and “they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). But we also see covenant community language in Mosiah 18:8–9, where Alma teaches that disciples are willing to “bear one another’s burdens” and “mourn with those that mourn.” The Bible itself recognizes an organized people of God before the New Testament. Stephen calls ancient Israel “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38).

So, the idea of a covenant church is not foreign to scripture. Also, Acts 2 is not happening in a vacuum. It echoes Old Testament restoration themes like Joel 2:28–29 and Ezekiel 36:26–27. So if Acts can echo the Old Testament, then Mosiah 18 can also echo the same covenant pattern without being a copy of Acts. In other words, the issue is not that Mosiah 18 resembles Acts 2. The issue is whether God is allowed to use the same gospel pattern repeatedly. Scripture says He does.

“Nobody was baptized in a church until Jesus set apart His church on earth.”

Here, Paul Gee is making the claim that because the concept of a “church” did not exist until Christ set apart His church on earth.

Nobody was baptized in a church until Jesus set apart His church on earth. John the Baptist started baptizing for repentance, while baptism with the Holy Spirit started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. In ancient times, the Israelites followed the laws of Moses and did not have a church established.

The claim that “nobody was baptized in a church until Jesus set apart His church on earth” is too narrow both biblically and historically. It assumes, first, that “church” can only mean a post-Resurrection Christian institution, and second, that covenant washing or baptismal practice did not exist before Acts 2. Scripture itself rejects that framing.

Stephen refers to ancient Israel as “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), showing that God’s covenant people were already described with ekklesia language long before the New Testament church was organized. So, the issue is not whether God had a covenant assembly before Christ; it is how that assembly was expressed in different dispensations.

The argument also depends on silence. The fact that the Old Testament does not narrate baptism exactly the way Acts does does not prove that covenant immersions, ritual washings, or preparatory cleansing rites were absent. Paul even uses baptismal language typologically for Israel’s Exodus experience: “our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1–2). Likewise, Hebrews teaches that the gospel was preached to Israel as well as to later believers: “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them” (Hebrews 4:2). In other words, the biblical pattern of covenant, cleansing, and entrance into God’s people is older than Acts 2, even if the outward administration differs by dispensation.

Historically, the Jewish background also makes Mosiah 18 far more plausible than critics often admit. Second Temple Judaism practiced ritual immersion extensively in purification contexts, especially in connection with temple holiness and covenant readiness. Archaeological study of mikva’ot and broader Jewish ritual practice shows that immersion was already deeply embedded in Jewish religious life before and during the New Testament period.

In addition, scholarly discussion has long recognized that immersion played a significant role in Jewish identity and conversion traditions, even though the exact date and form of proselyte baptism is debated among historians. The point is simple: immersion as a sacred cleansing or covenantal rite was not alien to the ancient Jewish world.

Mosiah 18 is therefore not a contradiction of the Bible, but a parallel covenant-renewal scene that fits the larger scriptural pattern. Alma teaches not only baptism, but covenant discipleship: “be willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn” (Mosiah 18:8–9). That is distinctive covenant language, not a mere repetition of Acts 2. The text then says that “the church was established in the land” (Mosiah 18:17), which aligns with the biblical idea of God forming a visible covenant people. The Book of Mormon is not claiming that Nephite baptism must be identical in every historical detail to later Christian baptism; it is showing that God has always used covenant ordinances to gather and sanctify His people.

The critic’s comparison also misses the fact that Acts 2 itself is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. Peter’s sermon echoes Joel’s prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28–32), and the language of new hearts and a new spirit resonates with Ezekiel 36:26–27 and the restoration vision of Ezekiel 37. So if Acts 2 can legitimately echo earlier scripture without being accused of plagiarism, then Mosiah 18 can likewise present the same divine covenant pattern without being a copy of Acts. Similarity alone does not prove dependence. To prove copying, one must show literary dependence, not merely a shared sequence of repentance, baptism, and the formation of a covenant community.

So, the real issue is not whether Mosiah 18 resembles Acts 2. It does, and that is exactly what we should expect if God consistently works through covenant patterns across dispensations. The Bible itself shows repeated patterns of deliverance, covenant renewal, cleansing, and gathering: Exodus, Red Sea, Jordan crossing, restoration prophecy, and then Christian fulfillment. Mosiah 18 belongs in that same scriptural framework. It does not contradict the Bible; it reinforces the biblical truth that God gathers a people, gives ordinances, and builds His covenant community through Jesus Christ.

“We don’t learn about baptism until John the Baptist.”

The statement “We also don’t learn about baptism until John the Baptist came on the scene” depends on an equivocation in the word baptism. It treats baptism as if it must mean a brand-new invention that appears out of nowhere in John’s ministry, when the biblical and historical data show something more nuanced.

We also don’t learn about baptism until John the Baptist came on the scene. Only ceremonial washings and water purifications are known. Isn’t it interesting that Mosiah is supposedly recorded before Jesus’s birth, in 147-145BC?

The Greek verb baptizō means to immerse, dip, or wash, and that action existed long before John in ritual purification settings. The real question is not whether immersion existed before John, but what is distinctive about John’s baptism. The New Testament presents John’s baptism as preparatory and messianic in purpose, not as the first-time water immersion ever existed (Mark 1:4; Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:3). The Bible itself already contains washing and immersion language long before John. The law of Moses includes repeated washings for cleansing and ritual purity (for example, Leviticus 14:8–9; Leviticus 15:5–13; Numbers 19:7–13). These were not Christian ordinances, of course, but they show that sacred water rites were already part of Israel’s religious life. That means it is inaccurate to say that baptismal or immersion-based cleansing only begins with John the Baptist.

John’s baptism is distinctive because it calls Israel to repentance in view of the coming Messiah: “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). The novelty is in the prophetic moment and covenant urgency, not in water immersion itself. The New Testament never says, “Before John, no one ever used immersion as a covenantal or purifying rite.” Instead, it presents John as the forerunner who gives a climactic form to a much older pattern.

Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore, bear fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is more powerful than I, and I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:5-12)

Jesus Himself connects baptism to covenantal entrance and new birth when He says, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). And Peter later ties baptism to repentance and remission of sins in the Christ event (Acts 2:38). So when the Book of Mormon presents baptism as an ordinance that looks forward to Christ, that is not a contradiction of the Bible. It fits the scriptural pattern of God preparing His people through covenant symbols that ultimately point to the Savior.

That is also why Mosiah 18 makes sense in a biblical framework. Alma’s people are baptized as part of a covenant community formed around repentance, faith, and discipleship, not because immersion had never existed before, but because God is consistently working with His people through ordinances that point to Christ. The same God who gave Israel washings, who sent John to call Israel to repentance, and who commanded Christian baptism can also reveal covenant baptism among the Nephites.

John’s baptism is climactic, not ex nihilo; it is the culmination of a long biblical pattern, not the sudden invention of sacred water rites. So, the critic’s statement is too absolute. A better reading is that we do not learn about baptism in its fully messianic, repentance-centered, preparatory form until John the Baptist. But immersion, washing, purification, and covenant cleansing are already present in scripture before John. That makes the Book of Mormon’s use of baptism as a covenant ordinance historically and scripturally plausible rather than contradictory. It is exactly what you would expect if God has been preparing His people for the same Messiah across time.

“People could not have known about Christ’s atoning work in that detail.”

The claim that people in the Old Testament era “could not have known about Christ’s atoning work in that detail” is too strong and does not fit the Bible’s own prophetic witness.

Therefore, these people would have known better than to baptize for the remission of sins, as Jesus had not been born or sacrificed yet. At that timeframe, people could not see in the future and witness the death of Christ. The same knowledge about Jesus’s resurrection and ascension into heaven was not written down as a vision either in the Old Testament portion of the Bible. Adding this information to the Book of Mormon suggests that people had special knowledge of things not present in the Bible.

The Old Testament is full of messianic prophecy that goes far beyond general hope. Isaiah describes the Messiah as the suffering servant who is “wounded for our transgressions,” who “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,” and upon whom “the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:4–6). Isaiah also says he will “justify many” and “bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11–12). That is not vague symbolism; it is a detailed prophecy of substitutionary suffering and redemptive death.

Likewise, Psalm 22 describes piercing, mocking, and the casting lots for clothing (Psalms 22:16–18), and Daniel speaks of the Anointed One being “cut off” (Daniel 9:26). These are not later Christian inventions imposed on the Old Testament; they are part of the biblical prophetic record.

The New Testament explicitly confirms that earlier prophets understood more than critics often admit. Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Peter likewise wrote that “the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you,” and that they “testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (1 Peter 1:10–11). So, the idea that people before Christ could not know anything meaningful about His suffering, death, resurrection, and exaltation is simply not biblical.

They may not have understood every detail as clearly as the apostles did after the resurrection, but they absolutely could receive real prophetic knowledge of Christ’s mission. This is also where the argument from silence fails. The critic assumes that if a detail is not preserved in the surviving Old Testament canon, then it could not have been revealed anywhere. But the Bible itself acknowledges that there were other prophetic records and sources not preserved in the canon we have. It refers to “the book of Nathan the prophet,” “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” and “the visions of Iddo the seer,” among others (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22). That means the absence of a passage from the present Old Testament does not prove the absence of revelation. From a Latter-day Saint perspective, this fits naturally with the belief that God can reveal truth through prophets and preserve some records while allowing others to be lost. That is extra-biblical, but not anti-biblical.

The Book of Mormon’s claim that Nephite prophets could know of Christ’s atonement is not a contradiction of scripture. It is exactly what we would expect if God revealed Christ from the beginning. The Bible itself says the gospel was preached in earlier times: “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them” (Hebrews 4:2). And the Old Testament repeatedly points forward to a suffering, redeeming Messiah. The Book of Mormon is not claiming something foreign to biblical religion; it is claiming that God revealed the same Messiah to another covenant people and that they testified of Him. In other words, the issue is not whether ancient people could know about Christ. Scripture says they could and did. The real question is whether the critic is allowing the Bible to speak for itself. Once Isaiah, David, Daniel, Jesus, and Peter are all taken seriously, the charge collapses. The Book of Mormon’s presentation of Christ-centered prophecy is not a contradiction of biblical faith; it is a continuation of it.

Therefore, Mosiah’s baptism scene proves Joseph Smith made it up.”

The claim that “Mosiah’s baptism scene proves Joseph Smith made it up” rests on a hidden assumption: if something is not in the Bible, then it cannot be true revelation. But that assumption is not biblical. The Bible never claims to contain every revelation God has ever given. In fact, John explicitly says, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). In other words, the canon we possess is authoritative, but it is not presented as exhaustive.

Here we see Joseph Smith attempting to make his book appear like it is prophesying of future events. However, it is only an attempt to make his book sound Biblical on paper. When comparing it with the Bible, we see how it is far from being of God. Amen.

Agan, as previously stated, the Bible also acknowledges other prophetic writings that are no longer part of the canon we have. It refers to records such as “the book of Nathan the prophet,” “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” and “the visions of Iddo the seer” (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22). That means “not preserved in the Bible we now have” is not the same thing as “never revealed.” So, the argument “this is not in the Bible, therefore Joseph Smith invented it” is an argument from silence, not a demonstration of falsehood.

The Book of Mormon’s baptism scene in Mosiah 18 does not contradict the Bible by introducing a second, competing gospel. Rather, it presents another witness of the same Christ-centered covenant pattern already visible in scripture. The Bible shows God speaking to different peoples in different places, while pointing them to the same Redeemer. Paul says Israel experienced covenantal baptism language in the Exodus, being “baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1–2), and Peter teaches that baptism is tied to repentance and remission of sins in Christ (Acts 2:38). Mosiah 18 fits that same pattern: repentance, covenant baptism, and the formation of a people who are called to bear one another’s burdens and mourn with those that mourn (Mosiah 18:8–9).

The critic’s conclusion does not follow. Mosiah 18 does not prove Joseph Smith invented the scene; it proves only that the Book of Mormon is comfortable using the same covenant logic the Bible already uses. If God can reveal truth to prophets in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and through lost records not preserved in our current canon, then there is nothing anti-biblical about another witness of Christ addressing another covenant people. The Book of Mormon is not trying to replace the Bible. It is presenting another scriptural record that testifies of the same God, the same Redeemer, and the same gospel pattern.

What Does the Evidence Actually Say?

Remember, Paul Gee laid down the gauntlet of scrutiny and examination by claiming the Book of Mormon is in the proverbial courtroom. However, it is not the Book of Mormon that is on trial here – it is Paul’s arguments and claims. And after proper consideration, we see the following truth:

1. Biblically speaking: The Bible definitively shows Israel as a covenant “church” in the wilderness. It also uses the baptism language for Israel’s Red Sea experience. It also presents prophets who foresee Christ’s sufferings and glory. None of these rules out a Nephite community with covenant immersion pointing to Christ.
2. Historically speaking: Scholarship, archaeology, and other studies show that Jewish ritual immersions and proselyte baptisms predate Christianity and form the backdrop for John and Christian baptism. Therefore, the idea of a pre-Christian covenant immersion is historically plausible, not absurd.
3. Logically speaking: Paul’s argument leans heavily on silence and assumption about what God is allowed to reveal and when. Once those assumptions are questioned, the alleged contradiction dissolves. What remains is a difference in scope of revelation, not a clash in doctrine.
4. Theologically speaking: From a Latter-day Saint perspective, we believe Christ’s atonement is eternally effective, applied both backward and forward in time (cf. Romans 3:25). Ordinances performed before His mortal ministry can be valid anticipations of the same atoning work, just as Old Testament sacrifices pointed forward to the cross.

Thus, when Paul Gee says, ‘This story in the Book of Mormon is not scripture,’ what he’s really saying is, ‘God is not allowed to reveal more than what I see in my current canon.’ The Bible itself doesn’t support that limitation. When we let the Bible speak, when we look at history honestly, and when we apply basic logic, the supposed contradiction disappears—and the Book of Mormon’s witness of Christ fits into a much larger, richer, and more consistent story of how God works with His children