LDS What is the reward?

[Jane_Doe]

So, the Bible should say that?

If you want to say that such claim is the word of God, then it should be included in scripture. Else, how do you say it is Truth?

The only thing I can find, close to what you want is this....

Revelation 22:18-19King James Version (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
There are arguments as to fact that this meant just this particular book, Revelation, or the whole Bible.

Obviously it refers to the Book of Revelation, since A) The Bible didn't exist at the time, and B) John then went wrote another book after this, as did other authors of Bible.

So again I ask, where in the Bible supports your claim: "Anything written after the revelation is considered as words and opinions of men and men only, and must be tried by the fire of it's contents being parallel reinforced by and in conjunction with the holy scriptures, before it is acceptable to be presented as any sort of truth." Is this claim from God or men?

 

[withwonderingawe]

So, the Bible should say that? Show me anything that is justifiably, provable to be the word of God, written after the Holy Bible. The only thing I can find, close to what you want is this....

Revelation 22:18-19King James Version (KJV)

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:


19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
There are arguments as to fact that this meant just this particular book, Revelation, or the whole Bible.

The books of the Bible had to meet strict criteria in order to become canonized. The book of Mormon, and the Urantia Book, hardly do.
Like I said, their back stories rule them out before you crack them open. They have just enough truth to hide their deception.

You do realize there are books missing from the cannon of the Bible.

1Chron 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad theseer,

2 Chron 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.

The Book of Jubilees mentions the writings of Abraham, we don't have that.

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matt 2:5

....spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene: Matt. 2:23

Neither of those two prophecy are found in the Old Testament we have.

There are at least three letters of Paul which are mentioned but we don't have and one from Jude. Plus Jude mentions the book of Enoch which we don't have.

The Bible we have today is not complete.

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

 

[Rescued One]

Why reading the Book of Mormon is a waste of precious time:

The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book[Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

Reiterated:

"There is an overwhelming lack of understanding in the world in relation to these principles of salvation and exaltation given to prepare mankind for a place in the kingdom of God, and this lack causes many to stumble. There is no excuse on the part of members of the Church, for they have received the necessary revelation directly from the heavens in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. The great mission of the Son of God has been revealed in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants more clearly than any other place. Many passages that have been misunderstood, and therefore mistranslated in the Bible, are clarified in these sacred volumes."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4:.)

 

[Jane_Doe]

Why reading the Book of Mormon is a waste of precious time

That is your opinion.

I am of the opinion that reading primary sources of other faiths is NOT a waste of time, but a valuable thing to do in helping me understand and respect my fellow men-- despite the fact that I may think their beliefs are complete bunk or ok. This is what motivates me to read first hand the writings of John Calvin, for example.

 

[Rescued One]

That is your opinion.
I am of the opinion that reading primary sources of other faiths is NOT a waste of time, but a valuable thing to do in helping me understand and respect my fellow men-- despite the fact that I may think their beliefs are complete bunk or ok. This is what motivates me to read first hand the writings of John Calvin, for example.

Whatever you've read that Calvin wrote hasn't made you respect his marvelous understanding of God's word. And because you dislike what he taught, you should spend more time in your Bible and less with Calvin's writings. Generally, the Mormons who read Calvin's writings, are just more anti-Calvinist than the average Mormon.

Your scripture says that Presbyterianism is wrong!

 

[withwonderingawe]

Why reading the Book of Mormon is a waste of precious time:

The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book[Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

Reiterated:

"There is an overwhelming lack of understanding in the world in relation to these principles of salvation and exaltation given to prepare mankind for a place in the kingdom of God, and this lack causes many to stumble. There is no excuse on the part of members of the Church, for they have received the necessary revelation directly from the heavens in this Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. The great mission of the Son of God has been revealed in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants more clearly than any other place. Many passages that have been misunderstood, and therefore mistranslated in the Bible, are clarified in these sacred volumes."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4:.)

".....which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."

Remember this was written before Jesus was born so he is directing this at the Old Testament and what the Apostate Jews removed and not the New Testament. However the understanding has been distorted because of the removal done by the earlier Jews.

I've been listening to a talk given by Margaret Barker about this very thing. Margaret is a Methodist preacher from England. She has done a lot of study on the Jewish temple and how the forgotten ceremonies and symbolism point to Christ. Jesus told the Pharisees and Jewish leaders to read the scriptures because they testified of him but where. Isa 53 does but the Jews deny this. She says starting in 600 bc the Jewish leader began focusing on the letter of the law and gradually removed the spiritual meanings.

Margaret says the whole ceremony in the Holy of Holies or the Most Holy was pointing to how Christ would make us one with God. A priest could be holy but only the Most Holy could make someone else holy or bring deification.

In the beginning God was one with his creation and then the fall happened, Christ came to make us one again. The bread which was placed in the Holy of Holies stayed there 7 days then the priest would eat the bread making them holy or one with God, actually wearing the name of God on his forehead.

She seems to be saying that last meal where Jesus washed the feet and instituted the sacrament of bread and wine was really a temple ceremony or that it was paralleling the real ceremonies of the Jewish temple ending with the sacrifice of Christ.

She points out John 17 and say this prayer is the temple prayer (I'm paraphrasing here)

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

It's about the word of truth or the bread of life, Jesus. We are sanctified or made Holy through Christ the Most Holy. He will glorify us and bring about deification.

All of this was lost by the Jews and then later misunderstood by the Christians. Margaret is verifying exactly what the Book of Mormon says about "many plain and precious things" being taken away.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Whatever you've read that Calvin wrote hasn't made you respect his marvelous understanding of God's word.

Reference?

And because you dislike what he taught, you should spend more time in your Bible and less with Calvin's writings.

I assure you, I spend much more time reading the Bible than Calvin's words. The Bible is my personal study time of God's words. Calvin's words are part of the secondary interfaith study time, such as this morning I spent learning about Sikh beliefs.

Your scripture says that Presbyterianism is wrong!

?? What's the big deal there??

 

[JacksBratt]

You do realize there are books missing from the cannon of the Bible.

1Chron 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad theseer,

2 Chron 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.

The Book of Jubilees mentions the writings of Abraham, we don't have that.

Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matt 2:5

....spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene: Matt. 2:23

Neither of those two prophecy are found in the Old Testament we have.

There are at least three letters of Paul which are mentioned but we don't have and one from Jude. Plus Jude mentions the book of Enoch which we don't have.

The Bible we have today is not complete.

Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?

Ok, maybe this will help.

I was outside, filling my bird feeders, and this scenario came to mind.

Let's say a blue jay came and sat on my shoulder and spoke. It said, tell the people that I am an angel of God and have chosen you to pass on a message. That message is that creation was six days just like the ones you have today. Noah preached for 100 years for the people to turn from evil. Even Abel came back and stood beside him for support. Nobody listened.

1/ How is this any more or less valid than Joseph Smith's story or the story of the Urantia Book and William Sadler?

2/ Note how there is some Biblicaly parallel information combined with new information not even mentioned in the Bible.

3/ I know that there are other scriptures and writings that are not canonized. I would love to have seen the Book of Enoch or Jasher or the book of Jubilee hold this type of validation, but they don't.

I believe that they hold a wealth of information and back up the Bible in numerous cases. They are mentioned in the Bible as well.

In the end. If there are any writings that contradict the recognized books of our canonized scripture, I toss out that information as contrary to the word of God.

Words put to paper, outside the canon and in times past the historical time of Christ, that add to, contradict or take away from the Holy Bible... are not valid in my opinion as acceptable words of God and should be taken as the words of mere men. They should then be held to the fire of the word of God and if any words are against the biblical account but are presented as words of God... I will hold them as apostate doctrine.

 

[Jane_Doe]

1/ How is this any more or less valid than Joseph Smith's story or the story of the Urantia Book and William Sadler?

By the same note you can ask "How come Paul's story is more valid than the story of the Urantia Book?" Clearly this question is in error. Rather than lumping them together it is best to examine each work individually.

How does a person determine which is of God and which is not? Not by asking men (such as archeologist) but by asking God (James 1:5).

In the end. If there are any writings that contradict the recognized books of our canonized scripture, I toss out that information as contrary to the word of God.

Words put to paper, outside the canon and in times past the historical time of Christ, that add to, contradict or take away from the Holy Bible... are not valid in my opinion as acceptable words of God and should be taken as the words of mere men. They should then be held to the fire of the word of God and if any words are against the biblical account but are presented as words of God... I will hold them as apostate doctrine.

Note: the Book of Mormon enthusiastically supports the Bible, as a companion.

 

[JacksBratt]

By the same note you can ask "How come Paul's story is more valid than the story of the Urantia Book?" Clearly this question is in error. Rather than lumping them together it is best to examine each work individually.

How does a person determine which is of God and which is not? Not by asking men (such as archeologist) but by asking God (James 1:5).


Note: the Book of Mormon enthusiastically supports the Bible, as a companion.

You didn't answer as to whether my little scenario would be allowed or disallowed while the Book of Mormon or the UB should be accepted.

Also, there are numerous portions of the book of Mormon that contradict the Bible. There are many sites that will plainly point these out. At this site:

Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

I read a list of some examples and their explanations. Here is the conclusion:

The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.

The book of Mormon may have some good messages, however, it is only the words of a man and his ideas. It holds contradictions to the Bible so I will not use it as a source to follow in my life walk with God or anything else.

I will hold the Bible as the only source of the true words of our creator and all other sources will be held to the bar it sets.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Let's say a blue jay came and sat on my shoulder and spoke. It said, tell the people that I am an angel of God and have chosen you to pass on a message.

"And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, ..... ?" Num 22

The Lord communicates in many strange ways.

It holds contradictions to the Bible so I will not use it as a source to follow in my life walk with God or anything else.

So let’s look at what this The Urantia Book teaches;

“there is but one God, the infinite Father, who is also a faithful Creator……He is the great and only I AM.”

No he’s not . The Bible clearly teaches that Yahweh is the Son of God the Father and he is the great I am and creator of the physical universe.

“….thus, as it were, God becomes man, as occurred in the bestowal of Michael, who was called interchangeably the Son of God and the Son of Man. …”

There is nothing Biblical at all about that.

49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God/El; thou art the King of Israel.

Nathanael is referring to Isa 44 among other;
“Thus saith the Lord/Yahweh the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts;

Jesus was not Michael he was Yahweh.

Now that we have dispensed with The Urantia Book can you point to something in the Book of Mormon which contradicts the Bible and we’ll look at it.

 

[Rescued One]

".....which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."

Remember this was written before Jesus was born so he is directing this at the Old Testament and what the Apostate Jews removed and not the New Testament. However the understanding has been distorted because of the removal done by the earlier Jews.

I've been listening to a talk given by Margaret Barker about this very thing. Margaret is a Methodist preacher from England.

Don't use a human to trump the word of God. And Methodists are part of apostate Christendom according to Mormons.

And, finally, blaming the Jews instead of the "great and abominable church" for the removale of parts of God's word contradicts 1 Nephi 13.
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book[Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

 

[Rescued One]

LDS do believe that ALL scripture (including the OT & NT) are God inspired. God still speaks and continues to authority/revelation. When there is a difficult matter, God is appealed to directly.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

“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.”
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:461.

1 Nephi 13 denigrates the Bible:

Chapter 13
Nephi sees in vision the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles, the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the resultant state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture, and the building up of Zion. About 600–592 B.C.
1 Nephi 13:32

 

[Jane_Doe]

(Rearranging your post to make my reply more logical)

The book of Mormon may have some good messages, however, it is only the words of a man and his ideas. It holds contradictions to the Bible so I will not use it as a source to follow in my life walk with God or anything else.

I will hold the Bible as the only source of the true words of our creator and all other sources will be held to the bar it sets.

In case it was not clear, I do respect your beliefs in this regard, and am not trying to change them. My aim here is simply to share my perspective in a respectful interfaith exchange.

You didn't answer as to whether my little scenario would be allowed or disallowed while the Book of Mormon or the UB should be accepted.

My apologies, I thought my answer had come across (evidently I was wrong).

The most important aspect of any text/testimony is it's ultimate author: whether it was God or a man. The ultimate way to know this is to beseech the ultimate source of all Truth (God) and ask if Him if He is the author.

This is the procedure I have followed for each text/testimony I believe or disbelieve.

Also, there are numerous portions of the book of Mormon that contradict the Bible. There are many sites that will plainly point these out. At this site:

Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible

I read a list of some examples and their explanations. Here is the conclusion:

The contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible constitute a most serious obstacle to accepting the Book of Mormon as Latter-day scripture that is supplemental to the Bible. The Bible came first, not the Book of Mormon. And whereas the Bible is organically linked to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ by extensive surviving manuscript evidence going back as far as A.D. 125-30, the Book of Mormon is wholly lacking in any such evidences of ancient origin. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to make the Bible the standard for judging the Book of Mormon, and not the other way around? If we accept the Bible as our "measuring stick" for spiritual truth, the Book of Mormon must be rejected.

This often copy/pasted list is based off misconceptions of LDS beliefs, or man imposing their flawed interpretation on the Bible. There are no actual contradictions. If you want I can go through the list for you.

 

[JacksBratt]

(Rearranging your post to make my reply more logical)

In case it was not clear, I do respect your beliefs in this regard, and am not trying to change them. My aim here is simply to share my perspective in a respectful interfaith exchange.


My apologies, I thought my answer had come across (evidently I was wrong).

The most important aspect of any text/testimony is it's ultimate author: whether it was God or a man. The ultimate way to know this is to beseech the ultimate source of all Truth (God) and ask if Him if He is the author.

This is the procedure I have followed for each text/testimony I believe or disbelieve.

This often copy/pasted list is based off misconceptions of LDS beliefs, or man imposing their flawed interpretation on the Bible. There are no actual contradictions. If you want I can go through the list for you.

I think that I have stated that I dismiss this book outright due to the method it was believed to be communicated to J. Smith.

That is a huge red flag, as I said, due to the fact that men don't come back to earth after death to be messengers and certainly not as angels.

As for contradictions:
1/
The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."
2/
In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.

Numbers 3:9-10 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death" (See also Numbers 8:6-26).

However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.

2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people."
3/

1. The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
   Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
   
   However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.
   
   Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."
   4/ Luke 23:44
   It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. [i.e. 3 hours of darkness]

Helaman 14:20
…in that day that he [Jesus] shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his blight unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead

 

[Jane_Doe]

That is a huge red flag, as I said, due to the fact that men don't come back to earth after death to be messengers and certainly not as angels.

Are you still working under the assumption that "angel" means a species of being and not a messenger?

As for contradictions:
1/
The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."

First time in the Old World vs first time in the New World. These societies operated in separation. No contradiction.

2/
In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.

Numbers 3:9-10 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death" (See also Numbers 8:6-26).

However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.

2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people."
3/

That's because there were no descendants of Levi in the new world (they were Menesseh descendants). They weren't about to go without priests- God always appoints priests.

1. The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
   Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.

Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."
4/ Luke 23:44

Jacks, if I told you I live in Olivios, do you know is? Why not? Now, if I round and say "I'm from Buenos Aires", would you know where that is?

Now, if you can't tell me where a small town is in the digital age and need to round to the nearest landmark, how would you except people live in a much more primitive age and there had been no contact between them in 500+ years? Jerusalem was the landmark they knew.

(I don't actually live in Argentina, this was an example)

1. It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. [i.e. 3 hours of darkness]

Helaman 14:20
…in that day that he [Jesus] shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his blight unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead

Again, different sides of the world, different events.


(PS- it is always good to cite your sources when you copy over a list of someone else's words / cherry-picking)
(There are also plenty of lists of "Contradictions in the Bible" from people likewise cherry-picking and not telling the full story. Neither type of list proves anything)

 

[withwonderingawe]

great and abominable church,

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature—whether political, philosophical, educational, economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which are designed to take men on a course that leads away from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 137–38).

When the gospel was in the hands of the 12 apostles it was pure, Jesus had retaught that precious knowledge which was lost but as they died the Gentiles were influenced by apostate Jews and Hellenism. Philo was a Jew who incorporated Greek thought into the already apostate religion. The Christians added a lot of that philosophy into Christianity thinking they were following the right path after all the Jews worshiped this one God.

“"Philosophy has been given to the Greeks as their own kind of Covenant, their foundation for the philosophy of Christ ... the philosophy of the Greeks ... contains the basic elements of that genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human ... even upon those spiritual objects." ( Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6. 8)

The knowledge of the covenants made and that Jesus imparted to his Apostles in that upper room was lost.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I think that I have stated that I dismiss this book outright due to the method it was believed to be communicated to J. Smith.

That is a huge red flag, as I said, due to the fact that men don't come back to earth after death to be messengers and certainly not as angels.

As for contradictions:
1/
The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.

Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Alma 46:15 "...yea, all those who were true believes in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come."
2/
In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.

Numbers 3:9-10 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death" (See also Numbers 8:6-26).

However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.

2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people."
3/

1. The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
   Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
   
   However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.
   
   Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."
   4/ Luke 23:44
   It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. [i.e. 3 hours of darkness]

Helaman 14:20
…in that day that he [Jesus] shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his blight unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead

The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.
Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Luke who wrote Acts didn’t know there was another continent. Now if you think everything that his hand wrote came from the lips of God you have a problem with the story of Paul’s conversion and the conflicting story line.

The people living on that continent were first call Christians at Antioch but the Christians living here in the Americas were called Christians about a hundred years earlier.

2/
In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
Numbers 3:9-10 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death" (See also Numbers 8:6-26).
However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.
2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people."

When you read through the first few chapters of 1 Nephi you’ll find that they obtain the Brass Plates which contains their genealogy. Lehi is surprised to learn he is a descendant of Joseph of Egypt. All good Israelites should know from which tribe they come from.

In Neh 7 after they get back from captivity there is a group trying to prove their priesthood linage.

63 ¶And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their name.
64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

Gileadites were descendants of Manasseh. It’s hard to say who “the children of Barzillai were but they felt they were Levites even though they were named after called after the name of a Gileadite.

“But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.”

There was a practice of placing the grandsons under the name of a man who had no sons to carry on the family name. These men in Neh probably were descendants of Levi but they were also descendants of Manasseh through one of the daughters of Zelophehad and called after that name.

It is felt Lehi was in the same position, he offers sacrifices and later they build a temple and act as Levite priest.

Why couldn’t the men in Neh 7 find their genealogy? Because Lehi had them.

Putting Gen 49 in Hebrew when Joseph is given his blessing it says

“Joseph is a fruitful bough/son, even a fruitful bough/son by a well; whose branches/daughters run over the wall…The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:”

Nephi as a descendant of Joseph through one of these daughters fulfills this prophecy. They leave Jerusalem and go beyond the bounds of their lands and over the waters to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills.

3/
The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.
Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."

This is actually one of the proofs of the Book of Mormon.

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:
“ To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan" (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. …As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem." [Langfield, 53.] Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. "The land of Jerusalem" is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.”

It does not say he would be born in the city of Jerusalem but in the land of. Throughout the Book of Mormon there are cities and city states. There is the city of Zarahemla and then the land of Zarahemla. ‘The land of’ has the meaning of territory or county. A man could call himself a man of Athens and never step inside of Athens. One could be a Roman and never go to Rome.

There is even a letter written around 1388 bc using the exact same wording it states; "…a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah." El Amarna letter #290

This is not the way Joseph himself would have spoken but Alma would have.


4/ Luke 23:44[?IMG]
It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. [i.e. 3 hours of darkness]
Helaman 14:20
…in that day that he [Jesus] shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his blight unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead

In Jerusalem there was darkness for about 3 hours but here there was what appears to be a volcano going off with and a great earthquake.

“….a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.

And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.

And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.

And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;….” 3 Nephi 8

This rumbling and destruction lasted the 3 hours Jerusalem was in darkness. But there was also a “…thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness…” and this lasted the 3 days that Jesus was in the tomb. This kind of darkness is what happens after a volcano goes off caused by the dust and steam as it flows to the ocean.

What happened here is not the same as what happened in Jerusalem and that is not a contradiction just something different.

Think doctrine, is there some doctrine which in contrary to the Bible?

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you still working under the assumption that "angel" means a species of being and not a messenger?


First time in the Old World vs first time in the New World. These societies operated in separation. No contradiction.


That's because there were no descendants of Levi in the new world (they were Menesseh descendants). They weren't about to go without priests- God always appoints priests.

Jacks, if I told you I live in Olivios, do you know is? Why not? Now, if I round and say "I'm from Buenos Aires", would you know where that is?

Now, if you can't tell me where a small town is in the digital age and need to round to the nearest landmark, how would you except people live in a much more primitive age and there had been no contact between them in 500+ years? Jerusalem was the landmark they knew.

(I don't actually live in Argentina, this was an example)


Again, different sides of the world, different events.


(PS- it is always good to cite your sources when you copy over a list of someone else's words / cherry-picking)
(There are also plenty of lists of "Contradictions in the Bible" from people likewise cherry-picking and not telling the full story. Neither type of list proves anything)

Jane Doe, I understand you believe in the Book of Mormon. You are free to do so and I am free to dismiss it.

Anytime, in a discusson of God, Jesus, the events pertaining to messages from God or Christ...... to me, an angel is a certain type of being. One created, by God, in different ranks and positions with different responsibilities, abilities, powers and tasks. An angel is never a term applied to just anything or anyone who delivers a message. It most certainly is not the soul, spirit, conciousness or personality of somene that was once a man, human, on this earth who died and came back to tell us some important message...

Sorry, but that is how I believe and for that reason, among others, I dismiss the Book of Mormon, before it is out of the gate.

As for the explanations on the contradictions I gave, In every cult or sect that is not totally biblical, there will be twists and changes and exceptions that the leaders fabricate in order to justify their theology. I am not buying any of it.

I believe that the Holy Bible from Genesis to the Revelations, is the only book that I need and I will stand firmly on it as the Holy, word of God and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Thanks for your time in this debate. I hope that I have not offended you or your right to freedom of religion.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Bible says believers were first called Christians after Paul's ministry in Antioch.
Acts 11:26 "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
However, the Book of Mormon claims people were known by this title as early as 73 B.C.

Luke who wrote Acts didn’t know there was another continent. Now if you think everything that his hand wrote came from the lips of God you have a problem with the story of Paul’s conversion and the conflicting story line.

The people living on that continent were first call Christians at Antioch but the Christians living here in the Americas were called Christians about a hundred years earlier.

2/
In the Old Testament the only ones who could be priests were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel.
Numbers 3:9-10 "And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death" (See also Numbers 8:6-26).
However, the Book of Mormon story claims that descendants of the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3) were made priests.
2 Nephi 5:26 "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did consecrate Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people."

When you read through the first few chapters of 1 Nephi you’ll find that they obtain the Brass Plates which contains their genealogy. Lehi is surprised to learn he is a descendant of Joseph of Egypt. All good Israelites should know from which tribe they come from.

In Neh 7 after they get back from captivity there is a group trying to prove their priesthood linage.

63 ¶And of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their name.
64 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

Gileadites were descendants of Manasseh. It’s hard to say who “the children of Barzillai were but they felt they were Levites even though they were named after called after the name of a Gileadite.

“But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.”

There was a practice of placing the grandsons under the name of a man who had no sons to carry on the family name. These men in Neh probably were descendants of Levi but they were also descendants of Manasseh through one of the daughters of Zelophehad and called after that name.

It is felt Lehi was in the same position, he offers sacrifices and later they build a temple and act as Levite priest.

Why couldn’t the men in Neh 7 find their genealogy? Because Lehi had them.

Putting Gen 49 in Hebrew when Joseph is given his blessing it says

“Joseph is a fruitful bough/son, even a fruitful bough/son by a well; whose branches/daughters run over the wall…The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:”

Nephi as a descendant of Joseph through one of these daughters fulfills this prophecy. They leave Jerusalem and go beyond the bounds of their lands and over the waters to the utmost bounds of the everlasting hills.

3/
The Bible prophesied that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

However, the Book of Mormon said he would be born at Jerusalem.
Alma 7: 10 "And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin..."

This is actually one of the proofs of the Book of Mormon.

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson pointed out the absurdity of this argument:
“ To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus' baptism by John ("in Bethabara, beyond Jordan" (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn't a clue about the famous town of Christ's birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. …As one anti-Mormon author has pointed out, "Every schoolboy and schoolgirl knows Christ was born in Bethlehem." [Langfield, 53.] Exactly! It is virtually certain, therefore, that Alma 7:10 was foreign to Joseph Smith's preconceptions. "The land of Jerusalem" is not the sort of thing the Prophet would likely have invented, precisely for the same reason it bothers uninformed critics of the Book of Mormon.”

It does not say he would be born in the city of Jerusalem but in the land of. Throughout the Book of Mormon there are cities and city states. There is the city of Zarahemla and then the land of Zarahemla. ‘The land of’ has the meaning of territory or county. A man could call himself a man of Athens and never step inside of Athens. One could be a Roman and never go to Rome.

There is even a letter written around 1388 bc using the exact same wording it states; "…a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah." El Amarna letter #290

This is not the way Joseph himself would have spoken but Alma would have.


4/ Luke 23:44[?IMG]
It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. [i.e. 3 hours of darkness]
Helaman 14:20
…in that day that he [Jesus] shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his blight unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead

In Jerusalem there was darkness for about 3 hours but here there was what appears to be a volcano going off with and a great earthquake.

“….a great and terrible tempest; and there was terrible thunder, insomuch that it did shake the whole earth as if it was about to divide asunder.

And there were exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land.

And the city of Zarahemla did take fire.

And the city of Moroni did sink into the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof were drowned.

And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

11 And there was a great and terrible destruction in the land southward.

12 But behold, there was a more great and terrible destruction in the land northward; for behold, the whole face of the land was changed, because of the tempest and the whirlwinds, and the thunderings and the lightnings, and the exceedingly great quaking of the whole earth;….” 3 Nephi 8

This rumbling and destruction lasted the 3 hours Jerusalem was in darkness. But there was also a “…thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness…” and this lasted the 3 days that Jesus was in the tomb. This kind of darkness is what happens after a volcano goes off caused by the dust and steam as it flows to the ocean.

What happened here is not the same as what happened in Jerusalem and that is not a contradiction just something different.

Think doctrine, is there some doctrine which in contrary to the Bible?

Please see my response to "Jane Doe" in post #99

Thanks for your time and debate.