An interesting approach to the Book of Mormon

[JSF]

Unfortunately it also teaches that the 12 Apostles also came down from Heaven, which contradicts Jesus’ own words. The Bible supports pre-existence of nobody but Christ. The Book of Mormon affirms that Jesus not only visited the Americas and established 12 apostles here as well, also heretical.

The place of the original twelve apostles was not supplanted or duplicated in the BoM.

A pre-mortal stewardship is not taught in the BoM.

Jesus did visit “other sheep” and they were at least in Western New York. From there, he said he had yet more “other sheep.” Thus, in He Walked the Americas are accounts of a white God visiting many people.

The main thing is it introduces nothing valid not already included in the Bible…the last I read the Bible the Instructions for Holy Communion are right in there.

Please, do not insult the readership. If the original instructions were still there, it would say who could receive it, who could administer it and what the prayer for it was. All of which is in the Holy Book of Mormon just as Jesus it gave it in America.

The fact it was practiced before Christ’s crucifixion does not justify its practice all the way back to Adam…IF you are of the opinion that the Book of Mormon teaches re-baptism, that is interesting. Must not have read that part closely enough.

It matters not whether it was a sec before it or two millennia before it, the operative word is before. An until you read the NT and ask God to show you the different baptisms, you won’t appreciate its relevance.

What the Book of Mormon says about the plain and precious truths removed from it are that they were removed after the Bible went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles

Until you produce the step-by-step instructions for baptism and communion I stand by the Book of Mormon has being the “most correct book on earth” and the lack of those in the Bible confirmation that Book of Mormon prophecy was true and fulfilled.

 

[ParkerD]

I ran out of room in my previous post, so I’m continuing here…

Sorry to break it to you, but if you “delegate” to yourself, you aren’t really delegating. God didn’t delegate. He chose to reveal himself in three different ways, or persons, but **the fact is that God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is Jesus is God. One God. **

The true nature of the Trinity is a mystery because it defies human logic, but God made it quite clear that He is only one, and God in the form of Christ, who was fully human and fully divine (again, a mystery), made it very clear that He is God. (See my previous post for Bible quotes.)

Di_bear,

Thanks for the kindness you have shown in your posts.

It’s OK with me that we have a difference in our understanding that the One and only Savior who spoke through Isaiah in the Old Testament, was Jehovah, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the Great I Am, the Word, the Promised Messiah, the Anointed One. All the scriptures that speak of Him can be speaking of Him and still be true. He truly is the One True Savior. He truly did create this world and the heavens. He truly is the Word made flesh, who dwelt among humankind. He truly was God in the pre-mortal world. We knew Him as God the Son, and how could we not but marvel and rejoice at His voluntary offering of Himself to come to earth and be our Redeemer and our Great Good Shepherd to guide us back to the Father, through His grace!

Thanks, again, for your kindness. Wishing you peace and good will.

Wishing peace to all, and a wonderful day.

 

[SteveVH]

Di_bear,

Thanks for the kindness you have shown in your posts.

It’s OK with me that we have a difference in our understanding that the One and only Savior who spoke through Isaiah in the Old Testament, was Jehovah, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the Great I Am, the Word, the Promised Messiah, the Anointed One. All the scriptures that speak of Him can be speaking of Him and still be true. He truly is the One True Savior. He truly did create this world and the heavens. He truly is the Word made flesh, who dwelt among humankind. He truly was God in the pre-mortal world. We knew Him as God the Son, and how could we not but marvel and rejoice at His voluntary offering of Himself to come to earth and be our Redeemer and our Great Good Shepherd to guide us back to the Father, through His grace!

Thanks, again, for your kindness. Wishing you peace and good will.

Wishing peace to all, and a wonderful day.

Parker, would you mind addressing the point that Peter John brought up about the Book of Mormon, which purportedly contains the “fullness of scripture”, conflicting with current Mormon teaching on the nature of the “Godhead”. The Book of Mormon certainly seems to be leaning toward the Trinitarian view, at tleast from an outsider’s viewpoint.

Thanks.

 

[Peter_John]

Parker, would you mind addressing the point that Peter John brought up about the Book of Mormon, which purportedly contains the “fullness of scripture”, conflicting with current Mormon teaching on the nature of the “Godhead”. The Book of Mormon certainly seems to be leaning toward the Trinitarian view, at tleast from an outsider’s viewpoint.

Thanks.

Just to clarify the actual quoye is “the fulness of the gospel”. It is from atitle page that was reputedly part of the plates, and is the record’s own statement of its contents, reputedly part of what was translated.

 

[SteveVH]

Just to clarify the actual quoye is “the fulness of the gospel”. It is from atitle page that was reputedly part of the plates, and is the record’s own statement of its contents, reputedly part of what was translated.

Thanks for the correction. The Trinity was most fully revealed in the Gospels which lends even greater importance to the question. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it appears that Mormon doctrine is departing from that truth. If it is not true, then there are a lot of Mormons running around with a false “burning in the bosom”.

What I cannot buy into is the argument that “The Book of Mormon never says it stands alone”. If the documents considered by Mormons as inspired “scripture” conflict with one another, it is patently evident that one or two or all cannot be relied upon to obtain truth.
One is left to their own devices to sort it all out; what is true?; what is false? Which document trumps the other when a conflict arises. There is a simple maxim that truth cannot conflict with truth. In short, one can have no confidence that they are true at all.

 

[Peter_John]

Thanks for the correction. The Trinity was most fully revealed in the Gospels which lends even greater importance to the question. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it appears that Mormon doctrine is departing from that truth. If it is not true, then there are a lot of Mormons running around with a false “burning in the bosom”.

What I cannot buy into is the argument that “The Book of Mormon never says it stands alone”. If the documents considered by Mormons as inspired “scripture” conflict with one another, it is patently evident that one or two or all cannot be relied upon to obtain truth.
One is left to their own devices to sort it all out; what is true?; what is false? Which document trumps the other when a conflict arises. There is a simple maxim that truth cannot conflict with truth. In short, one can have no confidence that they are true at all.

First let me offer you the verses that make the promise:

3Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with dreal intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10?lang=eng&query=receive+things

Note that the promise does not say anything about a burning in the bosom. That actually comes from a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants regarding recognizing personal revelation in general.

Also note that it first says “read these things” which refers to the record, the Book of Mormon. Then, before promising a witness of the Holy Ghost it says to remember the mercies of God all the way back to Adam. Since that much is limited in the Book of Mormon, this refers to the Bible as well. Than it says “receive these things” which includes everything back to Adam, which includes the Bible that has been received, albeit with things taken out after the gentiles received it (which could very easily mean the Deuterocanonical books). The promise is for a witness from the Holy Spirit with regards to the Bokof Mormon teachings in conjunction with the Bible. That kind of tilts things in favor of getting a witness, since the Holy Spirit will not testify that the Bible is false.

However, also notice, it does not promise that the Holy Spirit will testify if these things are true, but if these things are not true. Than iot promises that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of all things, hardly a debatable subject. The semantics of this Book are very subtle, but compartmentalized.

As for the Bible, the Book also says,
6Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/29?lang=eng&query=Bible

It leaves out, to paraphrase, “Have ye obtained a Bible, save it were by the Catholics?”
The words that preced that verse could also have “Catholics” substituted for Jews, at this point, and all be true, with perhaps a more tangential meanin to “recovered”, that being, return to, or reassume the practices.

5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.
lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/29?lang=eng&query=Bible

The Book of Mormon is full of Catholicity, while directing people away from Catholicism. I used to think myself fool for having believed it, other than it being what I was taught. Now that I see itin a differnt perspective, and can also recognize the heresies it embeds, that I recognize what I believed in it was true. It is just that the wholebook is not.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, would you mind addressing the point that Peter John brought up about the Book of Mormon, which purportedly contains the “fullness of scripture”, conflicting with current Mormon teaching on the nature of the “Godhead”. The Book of Mormon certainly seems to be leaning toward the Trinitarian view, at tleast from an outsider’s viewpoint.

Thanks.

SteveVH,

I agree that the Book of Mormon would let “Trinitarians” still be comfortable with their definitions and descriptions of the Trinity using Book of Mormon passages. It does not force a definition or description of God onto people, just like the Bible doesn’t, although what Steven described just before he was killed as recorded in Acts is simple enough that even a child can understand the description.

But just like the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon focuses mostly on the Savior as the God of Israel, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and also the Holy Ghost as the revealer and Testator of truth. The Savior prayed to Our Father in Heaven during His visit to the Americas, and really at that point clarified that He was the God of Israel and yet that there was a need to pray to Heavenly Father on a normal, ongoing basis, in the name of the Son (in Jesus’ name).

The Savior appeared in a spirit body to the brother of Jared just after the time of the tower of Babel, and showed what a spirit body looks like (like the physical body, but seen through spiritually enlivened eyes). The Savior is the Father of our salvation, the Father when we become “begotten sons and daughters unto God” and thus when we do that He has spiritually begotten us and we have become a new creature whereby we have accepted His role as our “spiritual Father” and our Intercessor.

The Savior’s intercessory prayer and His prayer during the beginning of His atoning sacrifice would have to be considered as the two most powerful prayers ever uttered on this earth. So anyone who studies about the Savior and His atoning sacrifice should diligently study His intercessory prayer, since He prayed for all of us during that prayer, with the intense feeling of love He was feeling at that moment. The word “one” becomes among the most meaningful, powerful words in the English language when studied in the context of the Intercessory prayer. Some may minimize the word and its meaning, but I think that is a very ill-advised thing to do.

Again, wishing peace to all.

 

[BartBurk]

SteveVH,

I agree that the Book of Mormon would let “Trinitarians” still be comfortable with their definitions and descriptions of the Trinity using Book of Mormon passages. It does not force a definition or description of God onto people, just like the Bible doesn’t, although what Steven described just before he was killed as recorded in Acts is simple enough that even a child can understand the description.

But just like the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon focuses mostly on the Savior as the God of Israel, and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and also the Holy Ghost as the revealer and Testator of truth. The Savior prayed to Our Father in Heaven during His visit to the Americas, and really at that point clarified that He was the God of Israel and yet that there was a need to pray to Heavenly Father on a normal, ongoing basis, in the name of the Son (in Jesus’ name).

The Savior appeared in a spirit body to the brother of Jared just after the time of the tower of Babel, and showed what a spirit body looks like (like the physical body, but seen through spiritually enlivened eyes). The Savior is the Father of our salvation, the Father when we become “begotten sons and daughters unto God” and thus when we do that He has spiritually begotten us and we have become a new creature whereby we have accepted His role as our “spiritual Father” and our Intercessor.

The Savior’s intercessory prayer and His prayer during the beginning of His atoning sacrifice would have to be considered as the two most powerful prayers ever uttered on this earth. So anyone who studies about the Savior and His atoning sacrifice should diligently study His intercessory prayer, since He prayed for all of us during that prayer, with the intense feeling of love He was feeling at that moment. The word “one” becomes among the most meaningful, powerful words in the English language when studied in the context of the Intercessory prayer. Some may minimize the word and its meaning, but I think that is a very ill-advised thing to do.

Again, wishing peace to all.

I have never understood what all the fuss is about regarding the Trinity and Mormons and Catholics as long as the Mormon understands that previous Gods to our God never existed. As long as a Mormon accepts that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father before time began as God and thus never had a beginning, there is no real difference between what Catholics and Mormons believe. That was the point of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of God the Father having a body. There is no reason the Father could not take bodily form if he wanted to appear to Joseph Smith with His Son. The entire issue really boils down to what Mormons believe about Jesus’ eternal nature as God equally with His Father. He didn’t progress to become a God.

 

[Peter_John]

I have never understood what all the fuss is about regarding the Trinity and Mormons and Catholics as long as the Mormon understands that previous Gods to our God never existed. As long as a Mormon accepts that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father before time began as God and thus never had a beginning, there is no real difference between what Catholics and Mormons believe. That was the point of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of God the Father having a body. There is no reason the Father could not take bodily form if he wanted to appear to Joseph Smith with His Son. The entire issue really boils down to what Mormons believe about Jesus’ eternal nature as God equally with His Father. He didn’t progress to become a God.

This explains it fairly well. ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm Note that it took until 2001 to address this, hardly a harsh decision.

Mormonism has rejected any belief in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed since 1820, before it was even a Church. They consider it scripture more solid than the Bible that Jesus cosiders the creeds “abominations”.

They only believe that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father before time began” to the same extent they believe we are. In a nutshell, They do not mean when if they say it, what we mean when we say it.

They do not believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. He also has the same origin we do.

They do not believe that God took on a physical form to appear to Joseph Smith. They believe that is his permanent state.

Do those differences sound significant? That is just the start.

 

[BartBurk]

This explains it fairly well. ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm Note that it took until 2001 to address this, hardly a harsh decision.

Mormonism has rejected any belief in the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed since 1820, before it was even a Church. They consider it scripture more solid than the Bible that Jesus cosiders the creeds “abominations”.

They only believe that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father before time began” to the same extent they believe we are. In a nutshell, They do not mean when if they say it, what we mean when we say it.

They do not believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. He also has the same origin we do.

They do not believe that God took on a physical form to appear to Joseph Smith. They believe that is his permanent state.

Do those differences sound significant? That is just the start.

Let’s say the only thing the Mormons believed differently from us was that the Father had a body. Tell me how that would deny the Nicene Creed.

 

[SteveVH]

I have never understood what all the fuss is about regarding the Trinity and Mormons and Catholics as long as the Mormon understands that previous Gods to our God never existed. As long as a Mormon accepts that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father before time began as God and thus never had a beginning, there is no real difference between what Catholics and Mormons believe. That was the point of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not address the issue of God the Father having a body. There is no reason the Father could not take bodily form if he wanted to appear to Joseph Smith with His Son. The entire issue really boils down to what Mormons believe about Jesus’ eternal nature as God equally with His Father. He didn’t progress to become a God.

The fuss is that “eternal” to a Mormon does not carry the same meaning as “eternal” does to the Christian world. Pre-existing “intelligences”, from whence we came, and even matter itself, they believe, are co-eternal with God. In other words, they do not believe in a God who is the cause of all things. He did not create, rather he organized using already existing things around Him. God, in other words, is not all powerful, but rather dependant upon “things” in order to accomplish His purposes. This is considered absolute heresy by the rest of Christianity.

 

[BartBurk]

The fuss is that “eternal” to a Mormon does not carry the same meaning as “eternal” does to the Christian world. Pre-existing “intelligences”, from whence we came, and even matter itself, they believe, are co-eternal with God. In other words, they do not believe in a God who is the cause of all things. He did not create, rather he organized using already existing things around Him. God, in other words, is not all powerful, but rather dependant upon “things” in order to accomplish His purposes. This is considered absolute heresy by the rest of Christianity.

I agree with you that that is the sticking point. I don’t think it is a sticking point that God the Father has a body even if we disagree with them. There is nothing that would keep God the Father from obtaining his own body.

If these pre-existent intelligences were dependent upon God for their existence even though being co-eternal with God then I wouldn’t see that as a sticking point.

My point is that it wouldn’t take much tweaking of original Mormon doctrine for them to be at least marginally orthodox. About all it would take would be for them to get rid of King Follet.

 

[Peter_John]

Let’s say the only thing the Mormons believed differently from us was that the Father had a body. Tell me how that would deny the Nicene Creed.

The Mormon faith denies the Nicene Creed. They affirm that it is an abomination, so the question is immaterial. It also denies the simpler Apostle’s Creed as an abomination.

The idea of a corporeal God the Father denies that the Lord Jesus Christ was “eternally begotten of the Father … light from light.” Smith’s account of his first vision contradicts that the Son is one in being with the Father. It suggests that Jesus is physical progeny of the Father’s physical body, which Mormons believe, instead of just conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit”

And that would be IF that is all in the Mormon concept of God’s nature that differs from the Nicene Creed. But there is more.

However, I have maintained since my conversion that nothing in Mormonism conflicts with the Apostle’s Creed.

 

[Peter_John]

I agree with you that that is the sticking point. I don’t think it is a sticking point that God the Father has a body even if we disagree with them. There is nothing that would keep God the Father from obtaining his own body.

God the Father did obtain His own body. That is Incarnation Theology. They are one.

Jesus is “the very Eternal Father.” The fulness of the Father and the Son are all in the Holy Spirit, which is our inheritance as Christians, and what conjoins us with the Body of Christ. That is what Communion is all about.

The description of three distinct personages is less how we perceive God than the One God sharing his own Internal dialogue with us. They are not a team. They are not parts of the whole. Each of them is the whole. Each of them is Him – completely.

 

[BartBurk]

The idea of a corporeal God the Father denies that the Lord Jesus Christ was “eternally begotten of the Father … light from light.” Smith’s account of his first vision contradicts that the Son is one in being with the Father. It suggests that Jesus is physical progeny of the Father’s physical body, which Mormons believe, instead of just conceived “by the power of the Holy Spirit”

I hate to disagree with you about this, but whether or not God the Father has a body, the above could be true. I suggest you can be one in being with someone even though you have separate bodies. Being is the idea of what your nature is like. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three eternal persons who are one in being eternally God. You and I are two mortal persons who are human in being. If the Father had a body he would still have the same divine nature as He does now and Christ would still be one in being with Him. The Nicene Creed does not address whether or not God the Father has a body and didn’t need to do so. I personally don’t believe the Father has a body, but a person could be Trinitarian and believe that He does.

 

[Peter_John]

I hate to disagree with you about this, but whether or not God the Father has a body, the above could be true. I suggest you can be one in being with someone even though you have separate bodies. Being is the idea of what your nature is like. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three eternal persons who are one in being eternally God. You and I are two mortal persons who are human in being. If the Father had a body he would still have the same divine nature as He does now and Christ would still be one in being with Him. The Nicene Creed does not address whether or not God the Father has a body and didn’t need to do so. I personally don’t believe the Father has a body, but a person could be Trinitarian and believe that He does.

Your analogy is not accurate either in the use of the term of human being or in the use of the expression “one in being”. Human being is a type of being. You and I are both the same type of being, but we do not share a unified existence.

The proper analogy for you and I having separate bodies as human beings with the state of God’s existence, if the Father and Son each had individual and independent bodies, would be that the Father and the Son each have bodies but they are each divine beings. That is heresy. They are not. They are one being, and no multiplicity of Gods exists.

The Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not separte beings working together. They are not one being that we perceive in separate manifestations. The Trinity is not our perception but how God perceives Himself in internal dialogue which dialogue He has shared with us through the Incarnation of Christ. They are the same being, the same individual and ecah unique and complete iterations of that unity, without division on those iterations…

This entire line of inquiry reproduces many of the arguments that resulted in the Nicene Creed to begin with.

Ifyou only seek some point of consilience, work with the Apostle’s Creed instead, ut the Nicene Creed thoroughly contradicts the LDS concept of God’s existence.

 

[daveqdimal]

John the Baptist, was the last prophet. Cathecism says “In him, the Holy Spirit concludes his speaking through the prophets. John completes the cyle of prophets begun by Elijah”.
(CCC 719).

I strongly believe anyone, who came after John the Baptist, professing to be a prophet, was always, and will always be an impostor, from Muhammad, the protestant seers, joyce meier, and whatever denomination they establish, or whatever private revelation they espouse (rapture, etc).

 

[Peter_John]

In honor of the Feast of the Annunciation today:

From the original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon:
First Nephi, Cahpter 11
11:14 And it came to pass that I saw the Heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he saith unto me, Nephi, what beholdest thou?
11:15 And I saith unto him, a virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
11:16 And he saith unto me, Knowest thou condescention of God?
11:17 And I said unto him, I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh.
carm.org/religious-movements/mormonism/1-nephi

This was edited in later editions to say “Mother of the Son of God”. Interestingly, I stumbled on this for the first time, quite ironically, today when as Catholics we celbrate the Annunciation of our Lord and His Conception. As a Mormon I never really paid attention to the vast revisions since the Book of Mormon was published. I accepted the Church’s explanation of them as typos, or as intentional alterations by a typesetter.

When I stumbled upon this site, and some other less objective ones, what amazed me most was not the passage above, but the poor grammar throughout, which cannot be chalked up to typesetting error. Had this illiterate language remained in the book, which includes things like singular forms of to be for plural uses (i.e. “they is”) it would certainly give the book less appeal. The fact that correcting these changes took a lot of time to complete extends the time it took to complete the Book of Mormon way beyond ten years, and makes it more likely that a man could have written this book, and in fact confirms that completion of its composition – not just its proofreading – was a group project…

.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with you that that is the sticking point. I don’t think it is a sticking point that God the Father has a body even if we disagree with them. There is nothing that would keep God the Father from obtaining his own body.

If these pre-existent intelligences were dependent upon God for their existence even though being co-eternal with God then I wouldn’t see that as a sticking point.

My point is that it wouldn’t take much tweaking of original Mormon doctrine for them to be at least marginally orthodox. About all it would take would be for them to get rid of King Follet.

The belief in the Father having a body of flesh and bone only reveals their notion that God was once like us. It is an attempt to do away with the “mystery” of God. They disagree that God is an “unfathomable mystery” and pretend to understand Him in His fullness.

The Catholic Church does not accept Mormon baptism for this very purpose; their understanding of the nature of God. The Church does not even refer to their notions as heresy but considers the LDS church as an entirely different religion altogether.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

The belief in the Father having a body of flesh and bone only reveals their notion that God was once like us. It is an attempt to do away with the “mystery” of God. They disagree that God is an “unfathomable mystery” and pretend to understand Him in His fullness.

This is incorrect. Please cite an LDS source that claims that we believe that we “understand Him in His fullness”. Believing that He is embodied or that He was once like us does not do away with the mystery of God, nor does it logically follow that because of such beliefs we can understand Him in His fullness. In fact, a quick Google search provides ample sources showing that we do not believe that we can understand God in His fullness.