What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[smaneck]

Then you don't know the Bible, nor the nature of God as described in the Bible.

Oh, I do. I read the whole thing, not just the parts that coincide with a particular theology.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I think the doctrine about God being a man is found in their doctrinal work. What I think is not there is this business about Adam being God. As for what is revealed in the Bible, my whole point is that the conception of God changes in that book over time. Initially He is conceived in very anthropomorphic terms. He walks with Adam in the Garden. He goes down to earth and up to heaven. He requires burnt offerings like the gods of Mesopotamia because that is the way gods ate. Initially the existence of other gods is not denied, the Hebrew people should worship Yahweh alone because He is the one who brought them out of Egypt and they owe it to Him. Only gradually does Yahweh come to be seen in universal terms and the very existence of other gods denied. The New Testament refines the conceptions of the divine still further.
My point is that the nature of the biblical God depends on which part of the Bible you are looking at.

It seems you have a misunderstanding about God as described in the Bible. Your understanding as described here is way off target.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Sorry, but being found on a website does not make something doctrinal. There is a website where you can find Baha'i pilgrim's notes. That doesn't make them authoritative sources of Baha'i practice or belief.

Isn't there enough in the four canonical sources that you can find without having to resort to non-canonical ones ?

It does if it is the "official" website operated and controlled by the orgainization with headquart. An lds even gave the definition of an official source somewhere in this thread, one of which was this found on the bottom of their official website:

© 2015 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

[A New Dawn]

Could you show me that there were several scribes taking notes. I can't find it any where

It was how the services were recorded as far back as Nauvoo. I'm sure you can find the references yourself.

 

[smaneck]

It seems you have a misunderstanding about God as described in the Bible. Your understanding as described here is way off target.

My understanding is historical.

 

[zelosravioli]

True. The point of the Bible, is that it is His word. Scripture is God revealing Himself / His nature / and His character to man, that is the whole point of the Bibles revelation. If you don't accept God spoke to Moses and the Prophets, as Jesus also agreed, then you don't believe Jesus or the Prophets. If you don't, that's another subject, and that's ok.

But if you purport to believe the Bible is Gods word, that God spoke to Moses, Jesus is the Messiah promised in scripture, then do so. Lying would be 'saying' you believe, but you teach and do otherwise.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young 'say' they believed scripture, they boasted that they knew and could reveal God from the scriptures, and they also proposed they were Prophets of God, so they put themselves in this situation. They purported to know the nature of God, and that should agree with what Gods Word has already said, but it does not. In fact Mormonism is the antithesis of the biblical revelation of Gods Word.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul' (Deuteronomy 13)
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead... But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die' (Deuteronomy 18:1-10). Joseph was involved in spiritism and divination at the same time he supposedly found the golden plates. God would be breaking His own command in listening to and promoting a diviner and medium such as Joseph.

 

[BigDaddy4]

My understanding is historical.

The God of the Bible requiring burnt offerings because that's the way gods ate is historical?? That's funny.
Hebrews should worship God because they "owe it to him". That's funny.
The rest is humorous, too. Not accurate, but a chuckle nonetheless.

 

[fatboys]

If Brigham Young approved the transcription then I would agree that they accurately reflect his beliefs. Whether or not they constitute revelation he received as a prophet, is an entirely different question. It seems to me to accept that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets is not the same thing as accepting that everything they said or did was from God; it is to accept their revelations are from God. So unless they indicate this is a revelation not merely "counsel" I don't think Mormons are required to believe it. But I would agree that from this it appearst Brigham Young thought too much of himself.

You covered it well. You also have to remember the place and the times. They needed inspiration and motivation to survive. Brigham young said his problem was that he taught to much. I agree

 

[fatboys]

True. The point of the Bible, is that it is His word. Scripture is God revealing Himself / His nature / and His character to man, that is the whole point of the Bibles revelation. If you don't accept God spoke to Moses and the Prophets, as Jesus also agreed, then you don't believe Jesus or the Prophets. If you don't, that's another subject, and that's ok.[quote/]

He seems to have a good knowledge of the scriptures. What ever the reason for disbelief is valid from their perspective. Are they going to hell? No. There is no such place. Hell is coming face to face with the person you could have been. The hell is from within ourselves not a place. That is why it is described as fire and burning. It will be an eternal perspective[quote/]

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young 'say' they believed scripture, they boasted that they knew and could reveal God from the scriptures, and they also proposed they were Prophets of God, so they put themselves in this situation. They purported to know the nature of God, and that should agree with what Gods Word has already said, but it does not. In fact Mormonism is the antithesis of the biblical revelation of Gods Word.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul' (Deuteronomy 13)
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead... But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die' (Deuteronomy 18:1-10). Joseph was involved in spiritism and divination at the same time he supposedly found the golden plates. God would be breaking His own command in listening to and promoting a diviner and medium such as Joseph.

What is your understanding of spiritism? We do not worship many Gods we worship the same God Jesus told us to worship. The same God he did. If ther are other gods we do not know of them. So your inferring we are going after other Gods is weak. Very weak. I wanted to add othe things but I should not.

 

[fatboys]

It was how the services were recorded as far back as Nauvoo. I'm sure you can find the references yourself.

Have not been able to. How did you find it? Point me in the right direction

 

[smaneck]

It does if it is the "official" website operated and controlled by the orgainization with headquart. An lds even gave the definition of an official source somewhere in this thread, one of which was this found on the bottom of their official website:

© 2015 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

I think you may need to look up the word 'canonical' if you think something found on a religious organization's website makes it scripture.

 

[smaneck]

The God of the Bible requiring burnt offerings because that's the way gods ate is historical?? That's funny.
Hebrews should worship God because they "owe it to him". That's funny.
The rest is humorous, too. Not accurate, but a chuckle nonetheless.

"Origin of Burnt Sacrifices.

Only a part of the whole was at first offered; otherwise there would have been no sacrificial feast, no communion with the Divinity. But what should be chosen as the offering? and how should it be rendered? The Deity, being invisible, would be most suitably entertained by a more ethereal form of nourishment than solid food. Hence arose the custom of burning certain portions of the animal offerings or materials of the feast. The most appropriate of all were the fatty parts of the animal, which in general among ancient peoples, as among the Hebrews, were consumed by fire, while the remainder of the flesh was eaten by the human participants. This was the "zebaḥ," the fundamental animal offering."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3847-burnt-offering

As for the Jews 'owing it to Yahweh':

Leviticus 25:

55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah your God.

Numbers 15:

41 I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am Jehovah your God.

 

[mmksparbud]

In other words----they don't really have any idea what their church believes?? That's the confusion---they can say No we don't teach that, but quotes from their own prophet state they do--they just haven't read their own prophets works and are going by a cleaned up, more palatable version that is told to the general believers but only the more knowledgeable, true Mormons, know the real truth??? You mean the leaders are lying to their congregation--or at the minimum, not telling them all the truth???

 

[smaneck]

True. The point of the Bible, is that it is His word. Scripture is God revealing Himself / His nature / and His character to man, that is the whole point of the Bibles revelation. If you don't accept God spoke to Moses and the Prophets, as Jesus also agreed, then you don't believe Jesus or the Prophets. If you don't, that's another subject, and that's ok.

But if you purport to believe the Bible is Gods word, that God spoke to Moses, Jesus is the Messiah promised in scripture, then do so. Lying would be 'saying' you believe, but you teach and do otherwise.

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young 'say' they believed scripture, they boasted that they knew and could reveal God from the scriptures, and they also proposed they were Prophets of God, so they put themselves in this situation. They purported to know the nature of God, and that should agree with what Gods Word has already said, but it does not. In fact Mormonism is the antithesis of the biblical revelation of Gods Word.

I would modify that. It seems to me that the Bible contains a record of God revealing Himself, but it is not the Word itself. And note I said 'a' record not 'the' record. But don't worry I believe God spoke to Moses and the Prophets, and Jesus and Muhammad and Zoroaster and Baha'u'llah . . .
As to whether or not future prophets should agree with former ones, well there are some definite differences. What Christ taught is not what Moses taught. In fact Jews would say that Christianity is the antithesis with the revelation of the Tanakh.

 

[smaneck]

In other words----they don't really have any idea what their church believes?? That's the confusion---they can say No we don't teach that, but quotes from their own prophet state they do--they just haven't read their own prophets works and are going by a cleaned up, more palatable version that is told to the general believers but only the more knowledgeable, true Mormons, know the real truth??? You mean the leaders are lying to their congregation--or at the minimum, not telling them all the truth???

It seems to me that what you guys are doing is similar to dredging up what some Pope said in the 14th century and holding it up as what the Catholic Church really believes. I don't really believe that Mormons have any secret teachings. What I think they have is probably a considerable amount of debate within their community as to what Mormons should or should not believe.
In other words, I think they are like every other religions. Their cosmology is just a little, shall we say, unique?

 

[mmksparbud]

Except for one little thing---another pope, later on, may come along and state a new perspective on things, thus eliminating the old stand--but no one in the Mormon church says tight up front that they no longer will be believing this or that per news revelations. The only thing they did that was about polygamy. Once Utah became a state, the laws state only one wife, so they had a new revelation and plural wives were out (except for a few diehards who wish to retain it in spite of the law of the land); No one has decreed that they no longer believe in God was a man first created by another god on some other planet, that the Garden if Eden wasn't in Missouri, and make it clear about that blasphemous thing in the garden of Eden that brought about the birth of Christ. The Catholic church makes no denial of their believe in the forever virginity of Mary or her born sinless. They stand up and firmly declare it and do all they can to defend it. From the Mormons I've gotten denial, denial, denial until the actual quotes from their prophets are posted. That's what's soooo confusing! Haven't they figured out what their believes re since those golden plated were found?--I thought that's what they went by--right now, you seem to be saying, they can't figure out what they believe yet!! Well, that's fine--how about they so! If they can't believe in what scripture says because it is corrupted, and they can't decide if they believe in Smith and Young, then what are they basing their believes on????

 

[A New Dawn]

Have not been able to. How did you find it? Point me in the right direction

Gosh, I don't remember. 1977 was a really long time ago. It had to do with the King Follett's sermon. The historical notes I read in one resource indicated that there were numerous people recording the sermon and those notes were put together.

 

[Norah63]

has songsmith lost us over here in 'outreach'?

 

[ChetSinger]

I think the doctrine about God being a man is found in their doctrinal work. What I think is not there is this business about Adam being God. As for what is revealed in the Bible, my whole point is that the conception of God changes in that book over time. Initially He is conceived in very anthropomorphic terms. He walks with Adam in the Garden. He goes down to earth and up to heaven. He requires burnt offerings like the gods of Mesopotamia because that is the way gods ate. Initially the existence of other gods is not denied, the Hebrew people should worship Yahweh alone because He is the one who brought them out of Egypt and they owe it to Him. Only gradually does Yahweh come to be seen in universal terms and the very existence of other gods denied. The New Testament refines the conceptions of the divine still further.
My point is that the nature of the biblical God depends on which part of the Bible you are looking at.

Hello. This has long been an interesting subject for me.

You're right, the God of the OT sometimes appears as a man. And sometimes not. Judaism up through the time of Jesus (at least until sometime in the 2nd century AD) had no problem with this duality.

They sometimes called this physical manifestation of YHWH "the Word of YHWH". You can find it in the Targums (translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Aramaic, including commentary). Some of these Targums are so old they predate Christianity.

Here's that passage you mentioned about God walking in the Garden, in Hebrew:

And they heard the voice of HaShem G-d walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of HaShem G-d amongst the trees of the garden.

Here's that same passage in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan:

And they heard the voice of the word of the Lord God walking in the garden in the repose of the day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

That is, the physical manifestation of God is called "his Word". The Targums are Rabbinic writings, not Christian ones.

The first Christians, all Jews, applied this existing Jewish belief to Jesus. They believed that he was the latest appearance of YHWH's physical manifestation, John directly saying "the Word became flesh and lived among us".

So yes, God sometimes appears as a man in the OT. And he does the same in the NT, as Jesus.

You're also right about the earliest Jews acknowledging the existence of other gods. I've got some Jewish background for that, too, but it's too much to add to this post.

 

[zelosravioli]

'It seems to me that what you guys are doing is similar to dredging up what some Pope said in the 14th century and holding it up as what the Catholic Church really believes' (Smaneck)
The difference is that the whole idea of the Mormon Church stands upon Joseph being a Biblical prophet (As Islam demands that Muhammad is the true Prophet, it all stands on that question). And Josephs doctrine demands that the Mormon Church always has a Biblical office of Prophet as it's leader. This applies to Brigham especially, the second Mormon Prophet. We are not talking of just someone 'associated' with the LDS church later on down the line, Joseph is the foundation to Mormonism, you can't have it without Joseph (That would be like Christianity without Jesus, it all stands, or falls, with Him).

The Gospels are a testimony, or record, of who Jesus was, what He taught, what He was like, etc. We can then access His character from the record. The history of the LDS church, and the Journal of Discources are the record of Joe and Brigham, where we can read about 'them'. We are not interested in fictitious characters in this department, or ignoring actual facts, I personally want to be sure of the truth. If I wanted something made up without evidence or research, I could be content with Oprah.

(You seem very sincere, so I appreciate your responses as genuine. Don't think I am just trying to argue, just relay what I have learned)