What's so bad about the Book of Mormon?

[ivanc0]

When you claimed the Nephy (Nephi) killed his "uncle" in "cold blood," you ignored a request to respond to similar biblical cases. Moses killed an Egyptian, the Psalms writer, David fragged a soldier. Atheists will use these & many other cases as "evidence" that there's no god. So the challenge is to answer those issues, which will automatically have to be answers for alleged BOM "problems." Unless, of course a double standard is going to be enforced.

Moses killed an Egyptian, commited Genocide, killed families even of their own Israel when they hid the gold it should have been given to him, regulated how to legally rape a prisioner of war (better if virgin) Deuteronomy 21:10-1, regulated how to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. exodus 21 (just after the famous exodous 20).

I do not believe the old testament is literally the commandment of God, but the cosmo-vision of the old hebrew people, there is so much "Barbarie" in the old testament to be considered the literal word of God.
I prefer to just stick with the Loving God Jesus has shown us.

 

[ivanc0]

No, he just went on about having read the BOM 30 times, been a sem. teacher, blah, blah, blah. But you'd think that if you'd read it 30 times, you'd remember that Laban wasn't an uncle, he was like a captain of 50, interesting enough, another aspect that Joseph Smith got right. How did he know the ancient Jewish military had captains of 50? There are other evidences that could be mentioned too. One of the great ones is about Christ's visit to the Ancient Americas, 3rd Nephi. That visit got legendized in the later Americas, like Christ's world wide trek in historic Christianity got legenized in Santa Claus' frosty Christmas eve flights.

1nephi 3
3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

He was a relative, this is why he has the genealogy of the forefathers of Lehi.


About poligamy:
Jacob 1:15 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 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27 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. Mosiah 11:2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. Ether 10:5 Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. thanks

 

[Norah63]

Thats the thing that has been dividing the churches since the beginning. Who is gonna hear from the Lord for the rest of us. Well Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and another they will not follow.
If any man (woman) speaks truth that confirms what we hear from the True Shepard, it will be recieved. And so the power struggle go on.... Calvin had servius done in because he didnt like his theology and so goes the ages. Compitition is as rampant today as it has ever been.
The book of mormon has plain truth in it, recieved by some, rejected by others. Plain truth is often rejected, or replaced by another mans opinion. No worries, truth will always win out.
God's plans will not be frustrated.

 

[ivanc0]

Thats the thing that has been dividing the churches since the beginning. Who is gonna hear from the Lord for the rest of us. Well Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and another they will not follow.
If any man (woman) speaks truth that confirms what we hear from the True Shepard, it will be recieved. And so the power struggle go on.... Calvin had servius done in because he didnt like his theology and so goes the ages. Compitition is as rampant today as it has ever been.
The book of mormon has plain truth in it, recieved by some, rejected by others. Plain truth is often rejected, or replaced by another mans opinion. No worries, truth will always win out.
God's plans will not be frustrated.

I respect your faith, and if this is the way you are happy continue with your way. Mormons are great people, I do not share the doctrine any more but I still admire the mormon life style.

 

[A New Dawn]

Thats the thing that has been dividing the churches since the beginning. Who is gonna hear from the Lord for the rest of us. Well Jesus said His sheep hear His voice, and another they will not follow.
If any man (woman) speaks truth that confirms what we hear from the True Shepard, it will be recieved. And so the power struggle go on.... Calvin had servius done in because he didnt like his theology and so goes the ages. Compitition is as rampant today as it has ever been.
The book of mormon has plain truth in it, recieved by some, rejected by others. Plain truth is often rejected, or replaced by another mans opinion. No worries, truth will always win out.
God's plans will not be frustrated.

Calvin didn't have servius done in. First, it is Servetus, secondly, Servetus was already under the death penalty by the Catholic church long before he stepped foot in Geneva. And Calvin wasn't the one who had him "done in", Calvin was actually the one who advocated hanging him instead of burning him at the stake, the penalty for heretics at the time, because he didn't want Servetus to suffer.

The BoM only has plain truth in it because so much of it was copied directly out of the Bible. The non-copied parts, not so much.

As far as who is supposed to "hear from the lord for the rest of us", why do we need to have someone to hear from the Lord for the rest of us? I have a Bible where Christ spoke to us, and the apostles who walked with Jesus who give us help in applying those teachings to our lives. Why should someone, who didn't know Christ, feel the need to "hear from the lord for the rest of us"? I'm sorry, it is just a ridiculous concept.

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

1nephi 3
3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

He was a relative, this is why he has the genealogy of the forefathers of Lehi.


About poligamy:
Jacob 1:15 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 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob 2:27 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. Mosiah 11:2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines. Ether 10:5 Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. thanks

This thread starts out with different ones attempting to vilify the Book of Mormon with alleged "problems," then others claiming there is no arch. evidence, or some other alleged issues. One claim being that Laban was an "uncle." We don't get that in the Book of Mormon passages you mentioned, which is why some of us have question if you read the book of Mormon or not. Claims to geneological lines is broad & could include a lot of people, but there's no mention in the text that Laban was an uncle, which was why that issue was questioned.

As to poligamy, the Book of Mormon allows it, if God commands it to raise up a righteous seed, (Jacob 2:30), even though He knows of the problems that were created, when some took it to an extreme, like King Solomon & David did. So that's the setting for the passage often taken out of context. How that in the case with the Book of Mormon, in Jacob's time, there were men who remembered how David & Solomon had many wives, & they wanted to do the same thing out of lust. Jacob pointed out how poligamy for the wrong reasons was an abomination in the sight of God, not poligamy itself. (Jacob 2:6-35). So there's no allege contradiction as I've seen critics claim, when they put together certain passages & ignore Jacob 2:30. But poligamy problems in LDS history are like the poligamy problems in Biblical times, so its a human problem, one of weakinesses & imperfections that Christ's atonement is suppose to have covered. I had one critic tell me that God "winked" on such things for Old Testament times, but she then used a double standard against the LDS by allowing it for OT times, but not for LDS history. I think we've covered this issue, & perhaps could move on to any others now.

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

Calvin didn't have servius done in. First, it is Servetus, secondly, Servetus was already under the death penalty by the Catholic church long before he stepped foot in Geneva. And Calvin wasn't the one who had him "done in", Calvin was actually the one who advocated hanging him instead of burning him at the stake, the penalty for heretics at the time, because he didn't want Servetus to suffer.

The BoM only has plain truth in it because so much of it was copied directly out of the Bible. The non-copied parts, not so much.

As far as who is supposed to "hear from the lord for the rest of us", why do we need to have someone to hear from the Lord for the rest of us? I have a Bible where Christ spoke to us, and the apostles who walked with Jesus who give us help in applying those teachings to our lives. Why should someone, who didn't know Christ, feel the need to "hear from the lord for the rest of us"? I'm sorry, it is just a ridiculous concept.

I keep hearing & reading from critics that Joseph Smith allegedly plagerized the bible. It more like that Book of Mormon prophets, cited from Isaiah, as they gave credit to Isaiah, he being one of the prophets that was prior to their times. If citing is plag., then the New Testament writers would have to be guilty too. As with also early to later Christian writers, or anybody else that cites from earlier sources. That what would be ridiculous!

The Book of Mormon is God's dealings with a separate land, not with Biblical lands. It shows that God is not neglectful, but is mindful of other peoples in far away lands separated from each other. Thus, its a second witness to the world for Jesus Christ.

You asked: "Why should someone, who didn't know Christ, feel the need to "hear from the lord for the rest of us"? I'm sorry, it is just a ridiculous concept."

Response: This wasn't to early anti-Christians & early Christian apologists. They took it serious, for critics charged that the Christians claim that God speaks to them alone, hasn't a care for others, no oil of anointing or prophets were sent to other nations. That Christ appeared in just one corner of the world, after being asleep for ages. That Christ couldn't rule over the earth, or extend the boundaries of his kingdom to the "worlds" beyond the seas, like the pagan gods could. Thus, Christ is "neglectful" of other people before his time, during his time, cause he can't save the Christians from being martyred, let alone others elsewhere. These were the types of charges that early Christian apologists responded to by saying that Christ wasn't neglectful of pre-Christian times, & those in other nations, lands & kingdoms, or the islands of the sea, for he went to them, sent prophets & apostles to them, spoke to prophets in those far away lands. The reason for his descent into the infernal regions was to preach the gospel there too. So he wasn't neglectful, as charged. Even if modern Christians don't accept the Book of Mormon (3rd Nephi)'s account of Christ's visit to his "other sheep," they ought to at least be willing to consider the answers given to early anti-Christian charges of "neglect," as given by early Christian apologists who expounded on the doctrine that Christ went to other nations, even if that doctrine later got legendized into Santa Claus' Christmas rounds around the world.

 

[WirSindBettler]

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.

How was the BoM delivered? Oh, yes. I remember.

"An Angel From on High"

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:8

 

[Norah63]

See how much of a drawing power the book is?
Awesome after all these years. Truth always wins out.
Thanks for the thread Songsmith.

 

[EarlyChristianresearcher]

Paul's letter to the Galatians (Gal. 1:6-8), is about the controversy over circumcison, & the heated debates between Paul, Peter & others over it. So for other apostles to have preach another gospel, or even if an angel was to also, which was "contrary" to Paul's version, was the historical issue here. Not about the Angel Moroni. Paul was challenging what the other Apostles were saying about circumcison even to the point where he could be accused of self mutilization of the private parts, if the situation was interpreted through early anti-Christian & Atheistic tactics, (Gal. 5:6-12), 12: "I would they were even cut off which trouble you."

Rev. 14:6-7. The predicted "everlasting gospel" sent by an Angel of God? Why would God be sending, before the hour of God's judgment, angels? To warn the people of the earth? One with the "everlasting gospel"? If I were Atheist, I might use that to claim the Bible contradicts itself. You also have to show how this "everlasting gospel" is "contrary" to the one preached, in context, of course. If any gospel is contrary to the one preached it was the "gospel" that got the whole unscriptured-Nicene Creed concept of the three in one Godhead going in 325 AD.

Also, the early Christian apologists, Justin Martyr, in response to critics, said that the fallen angels heard the true prophets, in other lands or nations, preaching of Christ & the gospel, & that the fallen angels had counterfeited their message. That's the types of things Paul must have been writing about, for true angels of God continued to appear to the apostles to help them, & give them messages, (Book of Rev.) For Justin Martyr, who had critics pointing out parallels between early Christianity & the pagans. His answer to this was interesting because of how it suggest that he, like Origen, knew that there were prophets preaching about Christ & his gospel in other far away nations & lands. Thus, like for John P. Lundy, this was why there were parallels between the pagan mystery religions and early Christainity. True prophets in other far away lands had preached the true Gospel of Christ, predicted his coming, & the fallen angels & satan had heard them & set up counterfeits to confuse the people. True Prophets in other nations preaching about Christ & his gospel, is a Book of Mormon concept. The critics' charges of "borrowing" is often used against the LDS, but also against Christians by Atheists & early to later anti-Christians. Do you know what the answers have been to these charges? That Christ pre-existed, Christ had prophets in other lands, Christ went to other nations. Again, also Book of Mormon concepts.

Late 19th century Christian writer, John P. Lundy: "Infidelity has been accustomed to say, from the time of Dupuis to the present, that Christianity is only a sort of copy of ancient Paganism: that is has no new ideas, and must therefore be rejected. But where did Paganism get its sublime conceptions of God, its notions of immortality and human destiny? Whence did all ancient nations derive them, hold them, and agree so marvellously about them? This universal faith must have an adequate cause; and Christianity is but the more full, clear, true and glorious exponent of it all . . . If Christ was before Abraham, as He claimed to be, then surely He must have manifested Himself to other nations beside the Jews, or other nations, including the Jews, must have derived their religious systems and ideas from some common source.” Monumental Christianity, p.98.

“Borrowing, theft, adulteration. We have dwelled on the confrontation of comparative chronology since it seems to have weighed heavily on the Christian’s evaluation of the features they shared with classical paganism. From the moment they thought that, by virtue of their connection to the Jewish people, they preceded Greek history, they were able to consider resemblances to their adversaries only as cases of plagiarism committed against them by the latter. The direction of influence seemed beyond all doubt; as Justin unambiguously puts it, “It is not we who think like the others, but all of them who imitate us in what they say” (First Apology 60.10). Tertullian would recall the determining role played by chronology: “That which first existed is necessarily the origin of what followed. And this is why you have things in common with us or things that resemble ours”; so it is, he continues, that our Wisdom (sophia) gave you philosophy, and our prophecy your poetic divination.” Apologeticus 19.1.5*-6*. This slide from posteriority to dependence, in Judaism as well as in Christianity, has been studied by K. Thraede. (“Erfinder,” part 2, in Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum (1962), cols. 1242-61).

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.4 p.609, book 6, chapter lxxviii—lxxix, Origen Against Celsus; A. S. Garretson, Primitive Christianity and Early Criticisms, (Boston: Sherman, French Company, 1912), p. 90--91. See also Vol. 3, p.157-58, Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews. 1 Chronicles 16:12-16, 20-24. The Apostle Paul said in response to some of the pagans who were about to perform a pagan animal sacrifice, that even though God "in times passed suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good" (Acts 14:16-17, see also verses 13-15).

 

[drstevej]

See how much of a drawing power the book is?
Awesome after all these years. Truth always wins out.
Thanks for the thread Songsmith.

Norah, do you accept the First Vision as historical?

 

[TasteForTruth]

Do you accept the First Vision as historical?

I know I do. As historical as the resurrection of Jesus, anyway.

 

[A New Dawn]

I keep hearing & reading from critics that Joseph Smith allegedly plagerized the bible. It more like that Book of Mormon prophets, cited from Isaiah, as they gave credit to Isaiah, he being one of the prophets that was prior to their times. If citing is plag., then the New Testament writers would have to be guilty too. As with also early to later Christian writers, or anybody else that cites from earlier sources. That what would be ridiculous!

So Isaiah wrote in King James English? As well as all the Nephite recorders? Please. We are not that stupid. And if you read the NT, the places where OT writings were cited, most of them were altered to show how what was happening with Christ was a direct fulfillment of them. So point not well taken.

The Book of Mormon is God's dealings with a separate land, not with Biblical lands. It shows that God is not neglectful, but is mindful of other peoples in far away lands separated from each other. Thus, its a second witness to the world for Jesus Christ.

I understand what the purpose of the BoM is (having been RLDS for 40 years of my life), and I have no problem with the concept that it is a record of a remnant of God's chosen people. It is how it was brought about, the claims and failings of Joseph Smith, as well as the purported claims from him about what God said to him that I don't believe. I have no doubt that the first vision did not happen, nor do I believe that God changes his mind the way he would have had to have done in order for those claims of JS to be true.

You asked: "Why should someone, who didn't know Christ, feel the need to "hear from the lord for the rest of us"? I'm sorry, it is just a ridiculous concept."

Response: This wasn't to early anti-Christians & early Christian apologists. They took it serious, for critics charged that the Christians claim that God speaks to them alone, hasn't a care for others, no oil of anointing or prophets were sent to other nations. That Christ appeared in just one corner of the world, after being asleep for ages. That Christ couldn't rule over the earth, or extend the boundaries of his kingdom to the "worlds" beyond the seas, like the pagan gods could. Thus, Christ is "neglectful" of other people before his time, during his time, cause he can't save the Christians from being martyred, let alone others elsewhere. These were the types of charges that early Christian apologists responded to by saying that Christ wasn't neglectful of pre-Christian times, & those in other nations, lands & kingdoms, or the islands of the sea, for he went to them, sent prophets & apostles to them, spoke to prophets in those far away lands. The reason for his descent into the infernal regions was to preach the gospel there too. So he wasn't neglectful, as charged. Even if modern Christians don't accept the Book of Mormon (3rd Nephi)'s account of Christ's visit to his "other sheep," they ought to at least be willing to consider the answers given to early anti-Christian charges of "neglect," as given by early Christian apologists who expounded on the doctrine that Christ went to other nations, even if that doctrine later got legendized into Santa Claus' Christmas rounds around the world.

So, I'm scratching my head here. What does this have to do with why I need someone to stand between me and Christ when God rent the veil in the Temple in Jerusalem when Christ died, signifying we don't need someone to stand in for us anymore?

 

[A New Dawn]

See how much of a drawing power the book is?
Awesome after all these years. Truth always wins out.
Thanks for the thread Songsmith.

I noticed that you ignored my post, yet again. It seems your purpose here isn't to participate in discussions as much as to try to divide. Kind of like the person living in the White House now.

 

[Norah63]

Anyone can leave a church, bible study, religion, without trying to get everyone else out with them.
I have seen that happen too many times,

 

[drstevej]

I know I do. As historical as the resurrection of Jesus, anyway.

I was asking Norah.

 

[A New Dawn]

Anyone can leave a church, bible study, religion, without trying to get everyone else out with them.
I have seen that happen too many times,

Many of us did leave quietly. That doesn't mean that we have to sit idly by while false teachings are being promoted.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I was asking Norah.

If you don't want others to post in response, do it via PM.

 

[Ironhold]

So Isaiah wrote in King James English? As well as all the Nephite recorders?

Ever do translating work?

It's just as likely that JS and his scribes translated into Jacobean English because that was the standard of the day.

 

[drstevej]

Ever do translating work?

YES

It's just as likely that JS and his scribes translated into Jacobean English because that was the standard of the day.

JS did not live in the Jacobean era (that was 200 years prior). If that were the standard then all of Joseph Smith's writings would use Jacobean English.

Nah, Joseph was just trying to make it sound KJ-ish.

Doth thou notst agreeth, verily ??