What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

mmksparbud said:
What do you call spamming?---I always thought it was unwanted information---not false, just stuff you don't want to know about.

No, spamming is when you put up the same thing again and again, often in different threads.

And this is the only pre-existance I know anything about:

“And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware; Or you should say: Only our fathers associated others (with Allah) before, and we were an offspring after them: Wilt Thou then destroy us for what the vain doers did?"
Qur'an 7:172

mmksparbud · Jun 19, 2015

When this post is obviously about Mormons, why don't some Mormons answer the questions so we get to know what they actually think?

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
Multiple.

Plural wives -- condemned not only in the BoM - but in the actual Bible. Specifically -- and especially in the case of Kings of Israel

7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight?

It is a matter of Bible record - David did not marry any of Saul's wives.

==================

Notice that the only way to defend the Mormon practice of polygamy - is to try and find ways to "infer" some instance of God commanding abomination and sin. Whatever the bible condemns - well then God commands you to do it??

The Hebrew doesn't say "into your care", but I guess picking the most favorable translation is best. You guys already believe He changed the concept of keeping Torah, why not think He changed the concept of marriage? Seriously, it's bizarre. The Torah is full of so many rules "don't have more than one wife" wouldn't even have been as much of a stretch when compared to having a ritual bath after having sex or binding the words to your forehead and hand.

Also, taking the verse from earlier, in your estimation was HaShem calling on the King of Israel to be a man with one horse and no money to speak of?

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
The Hebrew doesn't say "into your care", but I guess picking the most favorable translation is best. You guys already believe He changed the concept of keeping Torah, why not think He changed the concept of marriage?

Does not say Marriage.

Hebrew translation to English - we have prophet NASB for that.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

Removing post, not worth arguing.

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

This was a detailed response to a pro-Mormon post - and the details are dismissed as "unwelcomed"??

Seriously? That is a "solution"?

BobRyan said:
The story about being spirit brothers before being born on earth - is not at all applicable to fallen Angels who were never born on earth and who are STILL spirits. If you move to South America that does not mean you were spirit brothers in pre-existence in North America before you moved there. You simply moved -- no "birth" in South America at all.

You are equivocating in the extreme if you believe that simply moving across town or angels moving from heaven to earth is "prexisting spirit brothers" - the angels that fell are still spirits and simply moved ... no pre-existence simply continued existence.

Here then is a story that fits the Mormon story -- it involves spirits getting read to be born as humans on earth. That is very different than "moving from one town to another" and stories NOT involving a pre-existing spirit preparing to be born as a human.

This "spirit waiting to be born as a human" element is entirely missing from your other examples.. (In fact Angels were created ... and are still spirits to this very day according to Hebrews 1 - they are ALL spirits and so not humans)

Interesting myths - but your prior example about "getting ready to be born" is more in line with the doctrine you are trying to get at.

I never ask them for "ancient stories about demons" -- I ask them about their story regarding humans being spirit brothers in heaven before being phsyicaly born on earth. They say they do not know where that is in the BoM or the Bible.

1 Neph 1:8-11 a great source to find text which "does not talk about spirits getting ready to be born on earth"

Another great example of a text that does NOT say anything at all about spirits in heaven getting ready to be born as humans on earth.

Even Nephi 11:7 is not an example of spirit brothers in heaven getting read to be born as humans on earth.

No wonder those 19 year old Mormon missionaries admit that they don't know of anything in the BoM that talks about spirit brothers in heaven getting ready to be born as humans on earth - before being born on earth!!

Out of curiousity- are you saying that Christ was born as a baby twice on earth? and that twice on earth he died on the cross once in America and once in the Middle East?

Have you read Hebrews 10?

Interesting that you are "going there" for your source.

I think your focus on the devil to get support for the LDS doctrine about all humans having been spirit brother's in heaven prior to being born as humans on earth - is a lot of equivocation but also somewhat instructive that you need to go there.

in Christ,

Bob

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

I do have one question. If Saul's wives were not David's wives, but women that David was told to care for, why would that be considered a good thing and why would Nathan tell David that HaShem said "and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"

Why did David want random women to care for and why would he want more of them?

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
I do have one question. If Saul's wives were not David's wives, but women that David was told to care for, why would that be considered a good thing and why would Nathan tell David that HaShem said "and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!"

Why did David want random women to care for and why would he want more of them?

David was taking care of Jonathan's family members and Saul's as part of a promise he made to Jonathan - the Bible never counts any of Saul's wives as the wives of David nor is there any reference to them being his wife.

And of course the Bible forbids polygamy for kings

Deut 17
17"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
David was taking care of Jonathan's family members and Saul's as part of a promise he made to Jonathan - the Bible never counts any of Saul's wives as the wives of David nor is there any reference to them being his wife.

Swing and a miss. You didn't bother trying to answer the question why David would want more random women to take care of. Care to try to answer it or would you like to go for strike two?
Also, the story Nathan tells is of a rich man with many sheep taking the sheep of a poor man. Sheep in this instance seems to clearly be an indication of women.

And of course the Bible forbids polygamy for kings

Deut 17
17"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

There's a word that isn't translated right which means exceedingly. He isn't to have multiple wives exceedingly. Or silver and gold or horses exceedingly. It doesn't mean David was forbidden in having more than one horse or more than one silver or gold coin. Constantly posting the same verse over and over and over and over again without actually answering questions is avoidance.

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
There's a word that isn't translated right

So then you have a prophet that translated Deut 17 "better" ?

In the OT kings had even more responsibility as spiritual leaders in a Theocracy - than a "deacon" in the NT.

Hence
Deut 17
17"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

What about the BoM?
==========================
Jacob 1:15

[15] And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.

Jacob 2:24-28

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
[29] Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

The text goes on to speak of the grief and heart ache this caused even in David's time and how doing likewise causes pain and a curse.

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
[34] And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
[35] Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
So then you have a prophet that translated Deut 17 "better" ?

What are you talking about? Why do I need a prophet to translate text?

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
What are you talking about? Why do I need a prophet to translate text?

some claim that the ability to translate correctly is proof that someone is a prophet.

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
some claim that the ability to translate correctly is proof that someone is a prophet.

We don't even consider Daniel a prophet. Our bar is not "can you translate".

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

The result of disregarding those strong statements against polygamy can be see in this defense of Mormonism.

BobRyan said:
And so the BoM calls polygamy "Abomination" and "wickedness" -- and just how was it practiced in the case of Joseph Smith??

In all fairness to Mormons - here is an apologetic for Joseph Smith stealing the wife of another man.

From: http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_send_men_on_missions_in_order_to_"steal"_their_wives_while_they_were_gone?
Question: Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to "steal" their wives while they were gone?
This claim is contradicted by historical data: ten of the husbands of the twelve "polyandrous" wives were not on missions at the time

One critic of the Church states, "Joseph Smith would frequently approach other men’s wives about being his own plural wives — often while the men were away." [1]

Researcher Brian C. Hales noted that this claim is without foundation:

Another detail in [John C.] Bennett's Pittsburgh affidavit is that the Prophet had sent men on missions so he could marry their wives in Nauvoo. This statement is contradicted by historical data. Of the twelve "polyandrous" husbands identified by Todd Compton, ten were not on missions at the time Joseph was sealed to their legal wives. Of the two possible exceptions, only one, Orson Hyde, is documented as on a mission at the time of Marinda Johnson Hyde's sealing to Joseph Smith. The second possible case involves George Harris, who left on his fourteen-month mission in July 1840. His wife, Lucinda may have been...sealed to Joseph Smith at some point, but the date is unavailable.[2]

================================

This is not something the saints were doing in the Bible.. as if God blessed such atrocity.

1. Coveting another man's wife starts out as a violation against the 10th commandment -- sin.
2. Seducing her to become your wife is what Christ called "adultery" and sin in Matt 5.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

3. to then take her as your wife is stealing.

so beyond the "abomination and wickedness" statements in the BoM we have certain issues with the actual Bible on this subject.

So then James 2 says that to violate one of these commands is to violate them all.

Notice the horrific scenario given as the "better solution" in defense of Smith.

From: http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_send_men_on_missions_in_order_to_"steal"_their_wives_while_they_were_gone?
Question: Did Joseph Smith send men on missions in order to "steal" their wives while they were gone?
This claim is contradicted by historical data: ten of the husbands of the twelve "polyandrous" wives were not on missions at the time

BobRyan · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
We don't even consider Daniel a prophet, so our bar is not "can you translate".

"We --- Jews"?? Don't consider Daniel a prophet?? How did that happen?

LoAmmi · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
"We --- Jews"?? Don't consider Daniel a prophet?? How did that happen?

He never spoke to the people. That was a requirement to be a prophet. The word navi, which is prophet, is about speaking not writing. All the people we consider prophets spoke. Daniel wrote. He isn't a prophet to us. Important, yes. Wrote about the future, yes. Not a prophet.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
And of course the Bible forbids polygamy for kings

Deut 17
17"He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

LOL. Not it does not because the verse proceeding it says "He shall not multiply horses." If not multiplying horses does not limit the number of horses a king has to one then neither does not multiplying wives. That is a point which you have ignored again and again even as you keep posting that verse.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
He never spoke to the people. That was a requirement to be a prophet. The word navi, which is prophet, is about speaking not writing. All the people we consider prophets spoke. Daniel wrote. He isn't a prophet to us. Important, yes. Wrote about the future, yes. Not a prophet.

I think there is another difference as well. A navi or prophet always addresses the current situation and warns about the direction we are headed. Apocalyptic literature like Daniel, however, is designed to give people hope in a hopeless situation. It gives assurance that God will make it right in the end.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

LoAmmi said:
We don't even consider Daniel a prophet. Our bar is not "can you translate".

Loammi, that's just what he misrepresented me as saying. What I really said is that I would have been more likely to recognize Joseph Smith's claim to prophethood I had been able to hear the voice of God when I read the Book of Mormon.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

BobRyan said:
So then you have a prophet that translated Deut 17 "better" ?

In the OT kings had even more responsibility as spiritual leaders in a Theocracy - than a "deacon" in the NT.

Which is completely irrelevant. When the Timothy and Titus were written polygamy was outlawed by Roman Law.

Hence

More spam. Only now you distort Deut. even further by leaving out the reference to multiplying horses.

What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Junior Member

Junior Member

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency