An observation about the bible and book of mormon

[Elric]

Im still waiting for someone to show that the BoM can stand on its own.

Most of the arguments used to show the credability of said book revolve around attacking the bible and triumphantly declaring “If you attack the BoM you also attack the bible”.

There seems to be this strange assertion that the bible and the BoM are some how linked or reliant on each other, a problem with that is that the bible can actually stand on its own and you dont need to attack/discredit the BoM to show the credability of the bible. In fact the bible doesnt need the BoM at all.

Basiclly not only is the assertion of “attack the BoM, you attack the bible” completly false (the bible is a completly “seperate” book"), its also a tad dishonest because its basiclly a distraction/redirection tactic used to draw questioning away from the BoM.

Putting aside the archeological issues, the questionable character of Mr Smith and the rest, lets say that the BoM is exactly what it claims to be.

My question is: Why has it been rewritten and changed as much as it has (actually why has it been changed at all)?

Was the translation poorly done?

Did the angel Moroni not do its (his) task properly?

Was Mr Smith divinely influenced while translating the gold plates?

Are people rewriting it to suit their own needs?

These questions lead to more questions like:

If the initial translation was not right, what was the new translation done from?

If Moroni came from God, why couldnt it (he) do its (his) job properly?

IF Mr Smith was divinely influenced yet still mistranslated the gold plates, then God must be faliable.

I ask these questions but nobody will answer, or even try to answer them.

The rewriting of the BoM to me would have to be the biggest red flag about the whole thing. When you add it to the rest, it doesnt look good at all.

 

[Annie_B]

Yep, trash the bible. That’s the Mormon way.

Please give me an example of where the bible contradicts itself.

The classic list of supposed bible-contradictions used by Mormons and other anti-bible types has all been thoroughly debunked. The only seeming contradictions in the bible are in the minds of those who don’t know the bible very well.

Paul/QUOTE

Let me spell it out for you so you don’t have to get someone to help you:
I do not believe that the BOM and Bible contradict eachother
I do not believe that the Bible contradicts itself.

You should have understood that from my post.

Slow down and understand what you read before you start tossing around insults.

Annie

 

[Annie_B]

Im still waiting for someone to show that the BoM can stand on its own.

Most of the arguments used to show the credability of said book revolve around attacking the bible and triumphantly declaring “If you attack the BoM you also attack the bible”.

There seems to be this strange assertion that the bible and the BoM are some how linked or reliant on each other, a problem with that is that the bible can actually stand on its own and you dont need to attack/discredit the BoM to show the credability of the bible. In fact the bible doesnt need the BoM at all.

Basiclly not only is the assertion of “attack the BoM, you attack the bible” completly false (the bible is a completly “seperate” book"), its also a tad dishonest because its basiclly a distraction/redirection tactic used to draw questioning away from the BoM.

Putting aside the archeological issues, the questionable character of Mr Smith and the rest, lets say that the BoM is exactly what it claims to be.

My question is: Why has it been rewritten and changed as much as it has (actually why has it been changed at all)?

Was the translation poorly done?

Did the angel Moroni not do its (his) task properly?

Was Mr Smith divinely influenced while translating the gold plates?

Are people rewriting it to suit their own needs?

These questions lead to more questions like:

If the initial translation was not right, what was the new translation done from?

If Moroni came from God, why couldnt it (he) do its (his) job properly?

IF Mr Smith was divinely influenced yet still mistranslated the gold plates, then God must be faliable.

I ask these questions but nobody will answer, or even try to answer them.

The rewriting of the BoM to me would have to be the biggest red flag about the whole thing. When you add it to the rest, it doesnt look good at all.

No answer would satisfy you; you have obviously already made up your mind.

Annie

 

[Elric]

No answer would satisfy you; you have obviously already made up your mind.

Annie

To be honest, I am not suprised by that response. Actually I am suprised that you replied to it instead of just ignoring it.

But you are wrong in your assumption. An answer would satisfy me, I may not agree with it, but at least you made the attempt to answer.

Please answer my question(s).

 

[Annie_B]

To be honest, I am not suprised by that response. Actually I am suprised that you replied to it instead of just ignoring it.

But you are wrong in your assumption. An answer would satisfy me, I may not agree with it, but at least you made the attempt to answer.

Please answer my question(s).

The vast majority of the Catholics that post regarding Mormons have already decided what the truth is to them and that the Mormons cannot and never will be right. So, that is where it comes in to play that no answer will suffice. If anyone really wants to know more about the LDS church, they should seek out information that is only found on the official church web sites or official church writings. Then, if you disagree, you can just leave it at that - knowing that you went to the source, got the information (or not) and can now get on with life. I have now answered your questions in the best way that I can to be sure you will get the most accurate answers and not just my opinion. If you go to the source and do not like what you hear, then so be it.

Annie

 

[Elric]

The vast majority of the Catholics that post regarding Mormons have already decided what the truth is to them and that the Mormons cannot and never will be right. So, that is where it comes in to play that no answer will suffice. If anyone really wants to know more about the LDS church, they should seek out information that is only found on the official church web sites or official church writings. Then, if you disagree, you can just leave it at that - knowing that you went to the source, got the information (or not) and can now get on with life. I have now answered your questions in the best way that I can to be sure you will get the most accurate answers and not just my opinion. If you go to the source and do not like what you hear, then so be it.

Annie

For starters, Im not cathloic.

Secondly, thats not an answer.

 

[RC_Matt]

“For those who have faith, no explanation is nececessary
For those who do not have faith, no explanation is possible”

Scince is not always right…sometimes yes - sometimes no. How can you ever prove a faith-based issue except by faith?

Annie

By applying common sense, and by that measure alone Mormonism fails the test. I somehow can’t buy the premise that God would exclude me from His Heaven if I didn’t have Joseph Smith’s permission and didn’t know the secret passwords and handshakes. Sorry, but that’s kinda goofy if you ask me.

 

[Annie_B]

For starters, Im not cathloic.

Secondly, thats not an answer.

I never said YOU were Catholic.

It IS an aswer - just not the one that you wanted.

Annie

 

[majick275]

PaulDupre;3366260:

Yep, trash the bible. That’s the Mormon way.

Please give me an example of where the bible contradicts itself.

The classic list of supposed bible-contradictions used by Mormons and other anti-bible types has all been thoroughly debunked. The only seeming contradictions in the bible are in the minds of those who don’t know the bible very well.

Paul

i think that’s a fair answer. you told us what you believe. I don’t think that’s the the “official” mormon position but then you only claimed that’s what YOU believe and then again you might believe your position is the same as the LDS church. That’s fine too.

 

[Elric]

I never said YOU were Catholic.

It IS an aswer - just not the one that you wanted.

Annie

Well you certainly asserted that I was, but its a pretty silly thing to argue about especally with the confirmation that I am not.

As to your “answer”, it was a cop out rather than an answer. You really would have been better off saying “I dont know, but you could try here”, or even not responding to my post in the first place with suggestions that you could answer the questions I had.

Its just turned out to be more of that redirection/distraction stuff that I posted about earlier.

But anyway, I did actually look LDS.org (as well as an FAQ link to BYU). I had a look at the FAQ site (maybe I was looking in the wrong place), I looked through BoM editions (amongst other things related to the BoM) but it wasnt really that helpful.

It talked about a printing error for the 1st edition where 60-70 books out of aroud 1000 (from memory) had different things printed in them and changes in spelling and grammer for the next edition.

It didnt explain why other changes were made or even how such a book could have spelling and grammer errors in the first place.

So I googled the topic and found many critical web sites that listed many of the apparent 4000+ changes, but nothing that could explain why.

So I did the right/reasonable thing and went to the source and I went to other places (and admit they are critical), but still have no answers. Actually that isnt completly true, many sources (non-LDS sources) say its because the BoM is false.

Is that the only answer that there is?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well you certainly asserted that I was, but its a pretty silly thing to argue about especally with the confirmation that I am not.

As to your “answer”, it was a cop out rather than an answer. You really would have been better off saying “I dont know, but you could try here”, or even not responding to my post in the first place with suggestions that you could answer the questions I had.

Its just turned out to be more of that redirection/distraction stuff that I posted about earlier.

But anyway, I did actually look LDS.org (as well as an FAQ link to BYU). I had a look at the FAQ site (maybe I was looking in the wrong place), I looked through BoM editions (amongst other things related to the BoM) but it wasnt really that helpful.

It talked about a printing error for the 1st edition where 60-70 books out of aroud 1000 (from memory) had different things printed in them and changes in spelling and grammer for the next edition.

It didnt explain why other changes were made or even how such a book could have spelling and grammer errors in the first place.

So I googled the topic and found many critical web sites that listed many of the apparent 4000+ changes, but nothing that could explain why.

So I did the right/reasonable thing and went to the source and I went to other places (and admit they are critical), but still have no answers. Actually that isnt completly true, many sources (non-LDS sources) say its because the BoM is false.

Is that the only answer that there is?

It is a valid frustration that has no remedy. The mormon church makes significant changes, such as whole sections have been removed from their D&C, and as you have found, significant changes to the BoM…official scripture…no official explanation given. Not ever. You will never find it because it isn’t there.

So, any mormon who has an interest in “what happened?” are left to work it out for themselves. There are mormon apologists, but they act in no official capacity for the mormon church itself. Anything they have to say is opinion, but it is the only place you will find non-critical opinion.

 

[Elric]

It is a valid frustration that has no remedy. The mormon church makes significant changes, such as whole sections have been removed from their D&C, and as you have found, significant changes to the BoM…official scripture…no official explanation given. Not ever. You will never find it because it isn’t there.

So, any mormon who has an interest in “what happened?” are left to work it out for themselves. There are mormon apologists, but they act in no official capacity for the mormon church itself. Anything they have to say is opinion, but it is the only place you will find non-critical opinion.

Wow.

That is quite a revelation!!!

I guess that explains some of the redirection tactics and the “if you attack the BoM, you attack the bible” bit, but it doesnt help the argument that the BoM is the truth at all. In fact it actually helps to discredit it.

I really thought that they would have an answer.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wow.

That is quite a revelation!!!

I guess that explains some of the redirection tactics and the “if you attack the BoM, you attack the bible” bit, but it doesnt help the argument that the BoM is the truth at all. In fact it actually helps to discredit it.

I really thought that they would have an answer.

You can’t give an answer when you don’t have one.

I was thinking today about this idea that mormons have that the Resurrection of Christ is based on faith alone. Christ did not leave it to faith alone, as He showed Himself, Resurrected, to hundreds of people. Yes, it takes faith to adhere to any religion, but God does not leave us to stumble around in the dark. He created us, for heaven’s sake, how we reason is how He made us. He knows how we are.

Come, let us reason together.

 

[why_me]

Yep, trash the bible. That’s the Mormon way.

Please give me an example of where the bible contradicts itself.

The classic list of supposed bible-contradictions used by Mormons and other anti-bible types has all been thoroughly debunked. The only seeming contradictions in the bible are in the minds of those who don’t know the bible very well.

Paul

The New Tesatament contradicts itself with faith and works. This has caused a major problem between catholics and protestants. Mormons however, do tend to stress faith and works combined. But Martin Luther was no fan of works and to my understanding wanted to remove such references from the new testment. There are also sections of the new testament that stress faith without works.

I view these as contradictions. The reason why there are so many christian sects in the world is because of contradictions and interpretations found in the new testament.

 

[why_me]

You can’t give an answer when you don’t have one.

I was thinking today about this idea that mormons have that the Resurrection of Christ is based on faith alone. Christ did not leave it to faith alone, as He showed Himself, Resurrected, to hundreds of people. Yes, it takes faith to adhere to any religion, but God does not leave us to stumble around in the dark. He created us, for heaven’s sake, how we reason is how He made us. He knows how we are.

Come, let us reason together.

And this is why we have the holy ghost/spirit, to guide us to greener pastures. Mormons have more than faith. They believe that with the book of mormon, there is a christ because there are two books that testify so.

But all religion is based on faith. There is nothing in the bible that proves christ is the son of god. We have no witnesses except that which is in the bible.

 

[why_me]

Wow.

That is quite a revelation!!!

I guess that explains some of the redirection tactics and the “if you attack the BoM, you attack the bible” bit, but it doesnt help the argument that the BoM is the truth at all. In fact it actually helps to discredit it.

I really thought that they would have an answer.

I know of no sections removed from the D & C but certain lectures were removed in the the 1920’s, I believe. I believe that they were the lectures on faith:

Over the years after the first printing, other revelations were received and some earlier materials were deleted. An 1835 edition, published in Kirtland, Ohio, was entitled Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints and contained 103 sections. In subsequent editions, more sections were added (see Doctrine and Covenants Editions). The most recent additions were sections 137 (1836) and 138 (1918) on salvation of the dead, and the Official Declaration 2 announcing the priesthood available to every worthy male member of the Church (1978). An article on marriage written by Oliver Cowdery in 1835 was deleted from the 1876 edition. Beginning with the 1921 edition, a set of lessons called the Lectures on Faith have not been included.

lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/scripture/doctrine_covenants.html

 

[Elric]

And this is why we have the holy ghost/spirit, to guide us to greener pastures. Mormons have more than faith. They believe that with the book of mormon, there is a christ because there are two books that testify so.

Its just a pity that the BoM is a fraud, this has pretty much been shown by the inability of the LDS church as well as the mormons (including yourself) on this site to be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the BoM.

But all religion is based on faith. There is nothing in the bible that proves christ is the son of god. We have no witnesses except that which is in the bible.

Again with the redirection tactic. Even IF that was the case, it still does NOTHING to show the BoM is true or that it is not a fictional work of man.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

And this is why we have the holy ghost/spirit, to guide us to greener pastures. Mormons have more than faith. They believe that with the book of mormon, there is a christ because there are two books that testify so.

But all religion is based on faith. There is nothing in the bible that proves christ is the son of god. We have no witnesses except that which is in the bible.

I am pleased to see you have opted to be more open and representitive about your Mormon faith. The honesty is appreciated.

 

[why_me]

Its just a pity that the BoM is a fraud, this has pretty much been shown by the inability of the LDS church as well as the mormons (including yourself) on this site to be able to answer a couple of basic questions about the BoM.

Whether the book of mormon is true or not, it still has not been proven to be a fraud. And that is the problem.

 

[Elric]

I know of no sections removed from the D & C but certain lectures were removed in the the 1920’s, I believe. I believe that they were the lectures on faith:

Well who do I believe, a person who claims not to be a mormon (all appearences to the contrary) or a person who says they are a former mormon?

Besides how would you know?

You are not a mormon.