What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

smaneck said:

Indeed, but the LDS Church fought that position tooth and nail as far as its application to same-ex marriage. I found ironic given their own history.

Click to expand...

Ironic that Christian would fight LDS poligamy, given their own history biblical OT poligamy too. But as a Ba hi, does your faith agree in same sex marriage, or traditional?

RestoredGospelEvidences said:

Ironic that Christian would fight LDS poligamy, given their own history biblical OT poligamy too.

Click to expand...

That's because the NT favored celibacy over marriage. That being the case they were certainly not going to look very positively on polygamy. Besides polygamy was against Roman law.

But as a Ba hi, does your faith agree in same sex marriage, or traditional?

Click to expand...

We do not allow same sex marriage in the Baha'i community anymore than we allow drugs or alcohol, or monasticism. But that doesn't mean we would shut down other people's monasteries or prohibit Christians from drinking wine at the Eucharist. Why would we then tell non-Baha'is who they can marry?

Songsmith said:

I just don't get it. I can show you point for point that the doctrine of the Book of Mormon is the same as in the Bible. It is very clear that salvation comes throught the work of Jesus Christ. The BoM says there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. It also makes it clear that Jesus is God, even that it was through the power of Jesus that all things were created, meaning that Jesus was not a created being. I know the arguments against the BoM, but they all seem to be contrived and/or straw men. I love the Lord Jesus Christ, and I love the Book of Mormon. I am saved through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Everything I believe outside of that are non-salvation issues. Unless you are saying that a wrong belief can negate salvation I don't understand how you can say that a belief in the BoM can negate salvation.

Click to expand...

I recall reading the book of Mormon, beginning in Nephi, I noticed that the book was telling the story from the time of Jeremiah from the perspective of a false prophet, the first inconsistency at that time was "all the prophets were preaching repentance" but according to Jeremiah the opposite was true. The inconsistencies were blatant to me so I read something else.

For example:

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

First noticed it is written in the first person.

According to biblical tradition, this sets up Nephi as an unreliable narrator, because he is exalting himself.

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

That his father lived in Jerusalem all his days (verse 4) and spoke egyptian, is interesting, Is there any archaelogical or historical sociological data to explain this?

3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

This sounds like Nephi is leaning on his own understanding.

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

Jeremiah Chapter 1
1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.

Jeremiah Chapter 5
30 “A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
31 The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way.
But what will you do in the end?

I could continue, but it appears the historical account of the book of Mormon teaches counter to the bible on key points, morally and also in relation to getting the story straight. I would say the bible and the book of Mormon don't work together, they're telling different stories.

Michael Collum said:

I recall reading the book of Mormon, beginning in Nephi, I noticed that the book was telling the story from the time of Jeremiah from the perspective of a false prophet, the first inconsistency at that time was "all the prophets were preaching repentance" but according to Jeremiah the opposite was true. The inconsistencies were blatant to me so I read something else.

Click to expand...

So did Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Obadiah, and Daniel never preach repentance? Because they are all said to be contemporaries of Jeremiah.

The new Christ-led church does not need the priests. The bible states He is the priest--the leaders of the church are just that. They are shepherds now, not priests. There is only one High priest that ministers before God for the purifying of our souls through the washing of our sins in His shed blood a thing no earthly priest can do. The priesthood the Mormons want to reinstate, was never to be needed again, it is a doctrine handed down from Catholicism. That they want to "re-instate", or alter its present form to one more like the old testament, is no proof that it is needed. Pastors are doing all the things that are needed now. The apostles never gathered together under a priest. They made no statement of one being needed and were not named as being leaders of the Christ-led church.

Michael Collum said:

First noticed it is written in the first person.

According to biblical tradition, this sets up Nephi as an unreliable narrator, because he is exalting himself.

Click to expand...

Where does biblical tradition say someone is an unreliable narrator if they use the first person? At most you might say this calls into question the authenticity of the text because the Hebrew prophets didn't ordinarily write this way. But it could be that the prophetic books speak of the prophet in the third person because the prophet didn't actually write the text. Rather someone else wrote down their revelations.

That his father lived in Jerusalem all his days (verse 4) and spoke egyptian, is interesting, Is there any archaelogical or historical sociological data to explain this?

Click to expand...

Possibly. The Levant, including Israel, was under Egyptian dominance much of the time.

3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

This sounds like Nephi is leaning on his own understanding.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you are trying to pick him apart.

4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

Click to expand...

<snip>

Jeremiah Chapter 5
30 “A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
31 The prophets prophesy lies,

Click to expand...

Just because there are false prophets doesn't mean there aren't true ones. Or do you consider Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Ezekiel and Obadiah false prophets?

I could continue, but it appears the historical account of the book of Mormon teaches counter to the bible on key points

Click to expand...

The way you are interpreting the Bible, it contradicts itself!

Just curious--in light if the now legalization of gay marriage--what if plural marriage were legal--would that mean that Christians should now have more than one wife, would that bring back plural marriages in the official Mormon church??

mmksparbud said:

Just curious--in light if the now legalization of gay marriage--what if plural marriage were legal--would that mean that Christians should now have more than one wife, would that bring back plural marriages in the official Mormon church??

Click to expand...

I raised that question earlier. Opinions were mixed. But expect this will reopen the question. After all, there are Muslims who would like to have plural marriages as well.

Restored Gospel evidences wrote earler...
"Qoute
The early Christians also made similar comments, of which I suppose may have been blow out of proportion by early anti-Christians. S. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th cent. A.D., wrote that they in becoming Christians, the Christians are therefore called by a new name, & are as if "Christs." "...Being therefore made partakers of Christ, ye are properly called Christs, & of you God said, Touch not My Christs, or anointed...Now ye were made Christs..." In the rituals of some of the early Christian sects, they would go through the mysteries as if, (in a symbolical way), they were a "Christ." Many of the symbols of the mysteries centered on Christ's death on the cross, the descent into the spirit world, the resurrection & later the ascension into heaven, etc.. So in this journey of the soul through the rites, they would act as if they were an anointed one, or a Christ, as Cyril of Jer. mentioned in his lectures on the Mysteries. So, it could be made to sound like the early Christians were going around boasting that they were Christs & saviors. Unquote"


the early Christians? STEDFASTLY IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE...AS WE SHOULD DO AS POSSIBLE.

Acts 2:42-47New King James Version (NKJV)
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.


Do This in Remembrance of Me


"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes" (I Corinthians 11:23- 26).

ASK YOURSELF ARE YOU CONTINUING STEADFASTLY IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE?
NOT THE DOCTRINE OF ANY WOMAN OR MAN THAT COULD BOAST ABOUT WHAT THEY ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST AND ONLY APOSTLES THAT WERE INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO WRITE THE BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT

Songsmith said:

It is a fallacy to believe that the only reason to write in first person is to exalt oneself. Without making that assumption you can't say the is an unreliable narrator because he is exalting himself because he is writing in first person. You cannot possible know that it was for self aggrandizement that he was writing in first person.

As I see it, he was simply relating his experience with God. How do you do that without relating your own story as you know it?

Also, are you willing to throw out most of the new testament? Paul might disagree that writing in first person is lifting oneself up.



This is engaging in the twisting of what is written. Yes, you could say that it means that Nephi was writing only from his knowledge and not as inspired, but that ignores the entirety of the context of what he is saying. What it means is that the things he was writing were not conjecture or supposition, but his knowledge of what happened. It is his experience with God.

Click to expand...

I don't generally mind if its a personal testimony, but when it is said "this is scripture" there is a higher standard.

smaneck said:

So did Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Ezekiel, Obadiah, and Daniel never preach repentance? Because they are all said to be contemporaries of Jeremiah.

Click to expand...

I did an electronic search of the bible and Jeremiah was the only prophet in that time period exactly, the inconsistency between Nephi and Jeremiah remains.

smaneck said:

Where does biblical tradition say someone is an unreliable narrator if they use the first person? At most you might say this calls into question the authenticity of the text because the Hebrew prophets didn't ordinarily write this way. But it could be that the prophetic books speak of the prophet in the third person because the prophet didn't actually write the text. Rather someone else wrote down their revelations.



Possibly. The Levant, including Israel, was under Egyptian dominance much of the time.



Sounds like you are trying to pick him apart.



<snip>



Just because there are false prophets doesn't mean there aren't true ones. Or do you consider Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Ezekiel and Obadiah false prophets?



The way you are interpreting the Bible, it contradicts itself!

Click to expand...

I was illustrating my point in the post prior, generally after opening the book that was my first impression, seriously.

Michael Collum said:

I did an electronic search of the bible and Jeremiah was the only prophet in that time period exactly, the inconsistency between Nephi and Jeremiah remains.

Click to expand...

The timelines I mentioned had the lives of prophets I mention overlap.

So to answer the subject of the thread, "What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?" if the Book of Mormon was a standalone piece not claiming to be part of any story but its own, there'd really be nothing wrong with it. But that it emerged in the 1800s as a counter cultural piece of literature, that's probably why there's the common reaction.
.
I was just answering the question if anyone wanted an answer.

smaneck said:

That's because the NT favored celibacy over marriage. That being the case they were certainly not going to look very positively on polygamy. Besides polygamy was against Roman law.



We do not allow same sex marriage in the Baha'i community anymore than we allow drugs or alcohol, or monasticism. But that doesn't mean we would shut down other people's monasteries or prohibit Christians from drinking wine at the Eucharist. Why would we then tell non-Baha'is who they can marry?

Click to expand...

The new testament did not favor celibacy over marriage. It favored one wife. Paul was the only one that said anything about celibacy being best, that way we devote ourselves to God. But he added it is better to marry than to burn. And though the old testament did mention plural wives, it was not the original design. God gave Adam, Eve--one wife. Noah had one wife, each of his sons had one wife. Many others. Abraham had another one at Sarah's insistence because of her lack of faith which caused no end of trouble to this very day.

Michael Collum said:

But that it emerged in the 1800s as a counter cultural piece of literature,

Click to expand...

That sounds like a plus!

mmksparbud said:

The new testament did not favor celibacy over marriage. It favored one wife. Paul was the only one that said anything about celibacy being best, that way we devote ourselves to God. But he added it is better to marry than to burn.

Click to expand...

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the institution! Paul's letters make up the bulk of the New Testament. But in fact he wasn't the only one. There was also this guy, Jesus:

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 19

Many others. Abraham had another one at Sarah's insistence because of her lack of faith which caused no end of trouble to this very day.

Click to expand...

Actually what Abraham and Sarah did was standard operating procedure at the time. Among Semitic peoples when an elite class women married she brought a handmaiden with her as part of her dowry. If she had no children or less than what was desired, this handmaiden served as her surrogate. When the handmaiden gave birth she would do so into the lap of the wife. The baby then became the legitimate child to the husband and legal wife. Jacob did the same thing. If you read the Bible you will find that he has children both from his two legal wives as well as their handmaidens, and the children of the handmaidens count as their mistresses own offspring.
The only thing unusual in Abraham's story is that Sarah wants to dump her adopted son once she has her own.

smaneck said:

That sounds like a plus!

Click to expand...

Indeed, but because the culture it was counter to was christian, that's basically the point.

Michael Collum said:

Indeed, but because the culture it was counter to was christian, that's basically the point.

Click to expand...

The culture of 19th century was one that approved of slavery, subjugated women, and engaged in ruthless imperialism. If that's what you call "Christian" I won't argue with you.