Did Joseph Smith ever quote from the Book of Mormon?

[SirThomasMore]

So which verse are you talking about with this comment? As a Mormon, I strongly value the Bible, and have (it appears based on my experience in this forum) a more thorough knowledge of it than most of the people with whom I have conversed on this forum. It comes up time and again that they are unfamiliar with a concept or the language nuances or the background beyond the few isolated verses they know and quote within a chapter. So then, who really “values the Bible” in terms of real study of the entire Bible as opposed to valuing the verses they happen to be familiar with?

I know of no verse in the Bible that is “hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy”, unless you are talking about the newer translation used by Catholics that is indeed untrustworthy based on how the original language has been brought over into English without regard to the original intent of the writer or speaker using the origin language and its background.

What translation would that be and how is it corrupt? Or is this just another nonsupported lds accusation?

 

[ParkerD]

…the newer translation used by Catholics that is indeed untrustworthy based on how the original language has been brought over into English without regard to the original intent of the writer or speaker using the origin language and its background.

To the general reader:

For example, here is a difference that has a profound impact on the meaning:

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
–Catholic-rcia

I responded citing the verse that had been translated differently:
I suppose you may be aware that 1 Corinthians 10:16 is translated differently in the KJV in that the words “participation in” become the words “communion of.” One could do a Greek-English transliteration comparison since there are internet sources that do that. This shows how significantly important it is that a very precise translation be used to really try and understand the original intent of an author or a speaker.

As to 1 Cor. 11:27 and 29, I suppose you are aware that the KJV has verses 24 and 25 with the words “this do in remembrance of me.”

I disagree with your final sentence. To partake unworthily is just as meaningful if taken as being done “in remembrance of me” since it is to mock the atoning sacrifice and suffering Jesus took upon Himself.

 

[ParkerD]

An example of unfamiliarity with John 6:

So basically they were no more than a bunch of hungry dogs following Jesus around to get another piece of bread or fish. I can just hear them. “Hey you know that guy Jesus, he’s handing out free bread and fish”. Upon hearing this 5,000 men (not including women and children) walk clear around the lake through the night (I’ve been there, its quite a jaunt) in hopes of getting another piece of bread or fish. I wonder what these folks did before Jesus showed up. Thanks Parker, I have never heard this interpretation before. Now it all makes sense.–SteveVH

My response to SteveVH included citing verse 24 to explain that they didn’t “walk clear around the lake through the night”:

Jesus knew their hearts, and described what they wanted in verse 26. As to how they arrived at the new setting, perhaps you missed verse 24 which says “they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”

I agree that it seems implausible that they would go to such an effort just to eat some bread and fish, but there are plausible elements to what they did:

1. A crowd follows a crowd. That is what people do. Not finding Jesus on the one side of the sea, when some started to “take shipping” to go to find Him, many others would follow. That is how people react.
2. The miracle of the loaves and fish had been impressive, and would have been spread as “news”. If there was going to be such a miracle again, it is logical that many people would think “That’s worth going out of my way to see–especially to get a taste of it and be able to tell others about it.” That is how people are.

Sorry you had never thought about these kinds of reactions before. They are not hard to figure out, especially when the Savior leads the way by saying what was in the people’s hearts.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I disagree with your final sentence. To partake unworthily is just as meaningful if taken as being done “in remembrance of me” since it is to mock the atoning sacrifice and suffering Jesus took upon Himself.

Except that you’re implying a difference between “in remembrance of me” and the Catholic/Orthodox belief regarding the Eucharist, when there is no such difference. “Remembrance” does not mean symbolic, and our Eucharist is very much done in remembrance of Christ.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

As to the Bible versus the Book of Mormon and teaching how and where to pray, your more recent comment about the Lord’s prayer shows the lack of Biblical teaching about how and where to pray, and the resulting formulaic prayers that certainly do not draw a person closer to God.

Please demonstrate what exactly is stated in the Bible that contrasts with his comments about the Lord’s Prayer. “Formulaic prayers” most certainly can draw a person closer to God if the person saying the prayer really means what they are saying. Rote recitation of a prayer is wrong, but it is not true that all recitation of “formulaic prayers” are rote and without thought.

Similarly, children recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school. Is it meaningless? Or does it have meaning when we really think about and believe what we are saying?

As far as getting close to Christ through what is called the “Eucharist”, that is not prayer and does not communicate with Christ directly, so to think that it replaces prayer as a way of drawing closer to Christ or the Holy Spirit seems to me to be a belief that is not taught by the New Testament–especially if as someone has commented on another thread, there really is “remembrance” going on since the act of “remembrance” can be done anywhere, anytime–or should be able to be done, I hope at least (subjective again–some may not be “able” to do that. They may think partaking the Eucharist is the only time they are allowed to have “remembrance” of Him.

What are you talking about here? Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the context of an extended prayer. The Mass is one long prayer to God. For Catholics, we believe that we enter into a deep, real communion with Jesus Christ, directly, through the Eucharist. It does not “replace prayer” (I am unsure why you said that, since no one ever said or implied such a thing). You are right, the New Testament does not teach that the Eucharist “replaces prayer”, and Catholics believe no such thing.

 

[Returning_Home]

Somehow I had it memorized, though I don’t know for what reason. Maybe it’s all the movies I’ve watched where it is recited. Even after 20+ years of no religion in my life, at all, when I started going to Mass I still remembered the Our Father and it was one of the things I “got”.

It’s funny you mentioned movies because of all the horror movies (I love cheesy horror flicks) that involve religion, all assume that Catholicism is correct. Strange that they’d all agree on that one point.

And when I started back to Catholicism this past Easter, I remembered more of the mass than I expected to. That said, I still don’t know the Apostle’s Creed or the missal by heart so I keep them in my Bible, which goes with me to church. A cheat sheet, I guess.

 

[ParkerD]

Please demonstrate what exactly is stated in the Bible that contrasts with his comments about the Lord’s Prayer. “Formulaic prayers” most certainly can draw a person closer to God if the person saying the prayer really means what they are saying. Rote recitation of a prayer is wrong, but it is not true that all recitation of “formulaic prayers” are rote and without thought.

Similarly, children recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school. Is it meaningless? Or does it have meaning when we really think about and believe what we are saying?

My point was actually that the Book of Mormon has more extensive descriptions of how and where and when to pray than does the Bible. The Lord’s prayer was given as an example of how to pray–i.e. “after this manner therefore pray ye”. The person calls on Father in Heaven, hallows His name, prays for His coming kingdom and that His will be done which acknowledges our dependence on Him and our need to accept that He knows what is best even when our prayers may be for something that may not be for our best good. We acknowledge our dependence on Him for food; we ask forgiveness for our sins (telling about them specifically) and offenses including toward others, and acknowledge that we forgive others offenses against us (having actually done that). We pray for protection against being led away by temptations and evil thoughts, and pray for Christ’s deliverance through His mercy and His grace. We acknowledge that He is the Supreme and Kind Ruler of the universe, and that His is the glory forever. But we don’t have to say the same words every time, and we hopefully have a great deal more to say than just those words and ideas.

Children may not think much about the words they have memorized for the pledge of allegiance, nor is it a prayer, of course. Countless children and youth have very little knowledge of the nation’s founding and heritage, and what those words mean they are reciting. Does it mean they’ll grow up to learn the background behind how the Constitution was developed, or how the three branches of government are a protection through the intended balance of powers/checks and balances, leading to the inspired form of government that is the “republic for which it stands”?

What are you talking about here? Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the context of an extended prayer. The Mass is one long prayer to God. For Catholics, we believe that we enter into a deep, real communion with Jesus Christ, directly, through the Eucharist. It does not “replace prayer” (I am unsure why you said that, since no one ever said or implied such a thing). You are right, the New Testament does not teach that the Eucharist “replaces prayer”, and Catholics believe no such thing.

The way the Eucharist has been discussed when I have read comments, it sounds like the person has built their relationship with Christ around the Eucharist, rather than building that relationship through prayer itself at whatever time and place the person feels the need to pray. That is why I responded about the Eucharist not “replacing prayer” to gain a deeper relationship with Christ. I meant personal, heartfelt prayer in a private setting at home or elsewhere.

 

[Returning_Home]

I know. In fact, he stole it from a neighbor

Indeed; the stone was found while digging a neighbor’s well, one Willard Chase. Mr. Chase hired Alvin and Joseph to help. The year was 1822. Chase found the stone and when he showed it to Joseph, he put it in his hat, just as in the accounts of his ‘translation’ of the BOM. The next day, Chase lent the stone to Joseph who kept it for approximately two years, during which time, Chase alleges that Smith the wonders he could discover by looking into it. Chase ordered the stone returned to him, which is apparently was. In 1825, Hyrum (Chase’s account misspells it as ‘Hiram’) asked to borrow the stone again to ‘accomplish some business’ that, without the stone, was impossible. The next year, one of Willard Chase’s friends asked to see the stone so the two men went to the Smith farm where, upon request of getting the stone back, Smith supposedly said: “I don’t care who in the Devil it belongs to, you shall not have it.”

I’m inclined to believe this account because we already know that Smith was heavily involved with occultism and money-digging or glass-looking. There’s also no reason for Chase to lie about this either. In addition, part of the story is confirmed by Martin Harris, part by Issac Hale, another part by Emma Smith, and yet another by Edward Stevenson (member of the First Council of Seventy).

Pay attention to this post, Parker; it shows that the function of the Urim and Thummim weren’t unique in the superstious magical world of the Smith family.

 

[Returning_Home]

Through this post I will let the person who asked about being ignored know that there is an option in this forum that allows comments to not be seen, and I have chosen that option in the particular case in question. I do that after I can see that to continue a conversation that will always be antagonistic will not be helpful to anyone, particularly since in each of those cases the person already has learned all they wanted to learn about LDS teachings and beliefs when they were a member and now are merely justifying their different choice of religion in life.

I guess I never thought of giving you the facts that the church doesn’t want you to know and then supporting them with citations as ‘antagonistic.’

No, I’m always learning about Mormonism because this is where the real, true, and living God Almighty has placed me. I subscribe to FAIR, FARMS, and the Nephi Project among others. I also occasionally watch BYU TV and use MormonWiki, too. How, then, have I ‘learned all I wanted to learn’ when I’m giving your church every opportunity to prove itself correct?

You can ignore me and play games all you like, Parker, but the facts simply will not go away, no matter how loud you sing “Come, Come Ye Saints.”

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

My point was actually that the Book of Mormon has more extensive descriptions of how and where and when to pray than does the Bible.

I was responding to this part of your post-“your more recent comment about the Lord’s prayer shows the lack of Biblical teaching about how and where to pray, and the resulting formulaic prayers that certainly do not draw a person closer to God.”

The Lord’s prayer was given as an example of how to pray–i.e. “after this manner therefore pray ye”. The person calls on Father in Heaven, hallows His name, prays for His coming kingdom and that His will be done which acknowledges our dependence on Him and our need to accept that He knows what is best even when our prayers may be for something that may not be for our best good. We acknowledge our dependence on Him for food; we ask forgiveness for our sins (telling about them specifically) and offenses including toward others, and acknowledge that we forgive others offenses against us (having actually done that). We pray for protection against being led away by temptations and evil thoughts, and pray for Christ’s deliverance through His mercy and His grace. We acknowledge that He is the Supreme and Kind Ruler of the universe, and that His is the glory forever. But we don’t have to say the same words every time, and we hopefully have a great deal more to say than just those words and ideas.

Of course Catholics agree with this (to say otherwise is to not understand what Catholics believe about prayer, as well as the actual practice). The Lord’s Prayer (also known as the Our Father) is an example of the manner of prayer, and can also be said as a prayer itself. Catholics do not believe that we “have to say the same words every time”, since we have multiple prayers, as well as prayers in our own words. Every day and night, at the least, I say a prayer to God in my own words. Catholicism allows for multiple types of prayers, including pre-written prayers, as well as “impromptu” prayers. We can say the Lord’s Prayer, and we can model our prayers after it.

Children may not think much about the words they have memorized for the pledge of allegiance, nor is it a prayer, of course. Countless children and youth have very little knowledge of the nation’s founding and heritage, and what those words mean they are reciting. Does it mean they’ll grow up to learn the background behind how the Constitution was developed, or how the three branches of government are a protection through the intended balance of powers/checks and balances, leading to the inspired form of government that is the “republic for which it stands”?

The point is that there are multiple examples of saying something “formulaic” where what we’re saying is meaningless unless we believe what we are actually saying, which is the part of this that is often missed by those that attack “formulaic” prayers. If someone is simply reciting the prayer as some sort of mantra or magic spell, and they don’t actually believe what they are saying, then it has no meaning. I assume that you agree, unless you believe that it is okay for Mormons to listen to the “formulaic” Sacrament bread and water blessing prayers and not ponder and think about what is being said. Especially when these prayers must apparently be said word for word correctly, and must be restarted if stated incorrectly.

The way the Eucharist has been discussed when I have read comments, it sounds like the person has built their relationship with Christ around the Eucharist, rather than building that relationship through prayer itself at whatever time and place the person feels the need to pray. That is why I responded about the Eucharist not “replacing prayer” to gain a deeper relationship with Christ. I meant personal, heartfelt prayer in a private setting at home or elsewhere.

You are creating scenarios that simply do not exist in Catholicism. Catholics can and do pray at whatever time and place we feel the need to pray. We pray to all Persons of the Trinity. You do not get to define what is “personal, heartfelt prayer” for a person, since it is “personal”, as you state. Catholics also believe that the Mass is a very special prayer where we enter into a real, direct communion and experience of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus is actually present in a special way in this setting, which is why the Eucharist is so important to those churches that believe in the Real Presence doctrine. This of course does not mean that we ignore prayer (especially since the Mass is a prayer itself), since the Mass is a part of our prayer life, and the Eucharist is obviously a part of our relationship with Jesus Christ. It is not the only part of Catholic prayer life.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I doubt that a man who “tells other people that … expects them to believe that he thinks that.” Perhaps he may hope that they will, but I doubt that he expects them to. Joseph Smith would have hoped that his audience would share in that belief, but to say that now the whole world has to share in that belief is an odd assumption about the use of a superlative in speaking.

Please read what I wrote more carefully. Of course someone who tells other people what he thinks expects others to believe that he/she thinks that - he certainly doesn’t expect everyone else to believe he is lying - unless he is known to be a liar! I certainly did not say that everyone else has to share in that belief. But a statement made by a supposed prophet of God who supposedly has spoken to God would certainly hold more weight with his followers than one made by anyone else.

What I was illustrating is that there is a subjective element to the quote.

Of course there is - so at the very least Joseph Smith believed that the BoM was superior to the Bible; which calls into question (or SHOULD call into question) his credibility and reasoning.

As to the Bible versus the Book of Mormon and teaching how and where to pray, your more recent comment about the Lord’s prayer shows the lack of Biblical teaching about how and where to pray, and the resulting formulaic prayers that certainly do not draw a person closer to God.

Despite your completely unfounded attack about my “lack of Biblical teaching about how and where to pray”, your statement illustrates that you have never prayed the Lord’s Prayer or the Rosary because I can GUARANTEE, from my own personal experience, that such prayers DO, in fact, draw one closer to God. You have no right or basis to say otherwise.

As far as getting close to Christ through what is called the “Eucharist”, that is not prayer and does not communicate with Christ directly, so to think that it replaces prayer as a way of drawing closer to Christ or the Holy Spirit seems to me to be a belief that is not taught by the New Testament–especially if as someone has commented on another thread, there really is “remembrance” going on since the act of “remembrance” can be done anywhere, anytime–or should be able to be done, I hope at least (subjective again–some may not be “able” to do that. They may think partaking the Eucharist is the only time they are allowed to have “remembrance” of Him.

WHAT?!?

How in the world can you say that receiving the Eucharist does not communicate with Christ directly? The Eucharist IS Christ - we receive Him directly!!! It is the ULTIMATE form of drawing closer to God. And it most certainly is taught in the Bible and was taught by all of the Apostles. Either you don’t understand the Eucharist AT ALL, or you didn’t proofread this part of your post before you submitted it.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

WHAT?!?

How in the world can you say that receiving the Eucharist does not communicate with Christ directly? The Eucharist IS Christ - we receive Him directly!!! It is the ULTIMATE form of drawing closer to God. And it most certainly is taught in the Bible and was taught by all of the Apostles. Either you don’t understand the Eucharist AT ALL, or you didn’t proofread this part of your post before you submitted it.

What I think he was doing is applying his understanding of the Eucharist/“The Sacrament” to Catholic practice. We believe that the Eucharist is a direct experience and communion with Jesus Christ, due to our belief in the Real Presence. Mormons do not believe this about their Sacrament. He also seems to apply his own views of this issue, as well as his own conclusions, to us, such as saying that partaking of the Eucharist is a replacement of prayer, when no Catholic on here has said such a thing. It is merely his erroneous assumption. The Eucharist is in the context of the Mass, which is an extended prayer to God itself.

 

[Jay53]

What I think he was doing is applying his understanding of the Eucharist/“The Sacrament” to Catholic practice. We believe that the Eucharist is a direct experience and communion with Jesus Christ, due to our belief in the Real Presence. Mormons do not believe this about their Sacrament. He also seems to apply his own views of this issue, as well as his own conclusions, to us, such as saying that partaking of the Eucharist is a replacement of prayer, when no Catholic on here has said such a thing. It is merely his erroneous assumption. The Eucharist is in the context of the Mass, which is an extended prayer to God itself.

You are right; from all my interactions with him, I just thought that Parker had a better understanding of the Catholic belief about the Eucharist that he wouldn’t apply the Mormon understanding of their “sacrament” to the Eucharist because obviously it is completely different. (I know he doesn’t agree with the Catholic belief, but I thought he understood what we believe.)

 

[PaulDupre]

ParkerD:

As a Mormon, I strongly value the Bible…

Glad to hear it, but you are at odds with your own church on this one…

The Mormon Church has always maintained that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy:

From the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 13:
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.

25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

The above passage claims that the bible we have now is not the same bible written by the prophets and apostles. Many of the “plain and precious parts” were taken away by the “great and abominable Church”. Why? “that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” (1 Ne:13:27)

Verse 29 states that those who believe the bible with the plain and precious parts deliberately removed by the great and abominable church stumble so that Satan has great power over them.

Continued…

 

[PaulDupre]

Bible corruption continued…

What do the modern LDS prophets and apostles say?

President Ezra Taft Benson wrote of

“the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text”
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 53).

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., popular LDS author and son of the tenth president of the church, said

“The early ‘Apostate Fathers’ did not think it was wrong to tamper with inspired scripture. If any scripture seemed to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted or completely removed from the Biblical text” (Religious Truths Defined, p.175).

Apostle Mark E. Peterson casts doubt on the reliability of the Bible and states forcefully that the corruption was intentional:

“Many insertions were made, some of them ‘slanted’ for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated”
(As Translated Correctly, p.4).

“It is evident then that many of the ‘plain and precious’ things were omitted from the Bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes, deletions and forgeries …”
(As Translated Correctly, p.14).

The encyclopedia of Mormonism:

“Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible”
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism , Vol. 1, Bible).

Again we can see from this small sample of quotes how the conviction that the bible is corrupt and untrustworthy starts with The Book of Mormon (“the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone of our religion”) and continues to pervade Mormon thinking and writing throughout their history.

Grace to you all,
Paul (a former Mormon)

 

[Returning_Home]

Glad to hear it, but you are at odds with your own church on this one…

I agree 100%. That Ezra Taft Benson is pone of my personal favorites. What a gem he was.

Also remember that the 1 Nephi 14 chapter heading reads “…Two Churches Only–Doom of the Mother of Harlots…”

My BOM student manual (p 15, 1996 edition) has this to say: “Elder Bruce R. McConkie defined the church of the devil in the following way: ‘The church of the devil is the world, it is all carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed syetm of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or pagan banner.’” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551)

Since the church used this quote to support its position, this obviously isn’t just his mere opinion; it is clearly shared by the church.

 

[ParkerD]

You are right; from all my interactions with him, I just thought that Parker had a better understanding of the Catholic belief about the Eucharist that he wouldn’t apply the Mormon understanding of their “sacrament” to the Eucharist because obviously it is completely different. (I know he doesn’t agree with the Catholic belief, but I thought he understood what we believe.)

I certainly don’t understand the Catholic belief, nor probably ever will on this particular teaching, nor do I agree that the apostles taught it. Christ knows the thoughts of the heart and the prayers that arise from a sincere heart, and thus is as present as His presence can be for people who pray and seek His guiding influence as they repent and seek to follow Him, other than being seen, which some few have had happen but that didn’t make it any more real than for those who haven’t seen Him personally. There is not a gradation of how His presence is communicated to people, other than that those with greater faith can have a purer feeling that He is near and is strengthening them as they seek to follow Him.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul,
I am certainly familiar with 1 Nephi 13 and 2 Nephi 29 about “plain and precious truths” having been lost from the Bible that goes forth according to prophecy and is accepted as “sola scriptura” according to prophecy. There are also these verses:

2 Nephi 29:3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
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.
6 Thou 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?
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

1 Nephi 13:38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren.
39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
41 And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth.

 

[Returning_Home]

I am certainly familiar with 1 Nephi 13 and 2 Nephi 29 about “plain and precious truths” having been lost from the Bible that goes forth according to prophecy and is accepted as “sola scriptura” according to prophecy.

And yet the JST is still one of the slowest moving books sold at Deseret. I guess Mormons are happy to contend with an inaccurate Bible than the ‘retranslated’ one that we know Smith finished on god’s orders(D&C 73:3-4, HOTC 1:324 and 1:368-69).

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

The Mormon god is the same for all time? Well, that seems to directly contradict D&C 132:20. I guess there goes your hopes of achieving exaltation and becoming a god, Parker. Sorry.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is *the Son of *the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.

Thank you for bringing this one up, Parker. This is an excellent piece of evidence showing that the BOM has been revised over and over by the church because the words I noted in red italics were added for the second edition of the BOM. Why doesn’t your god seem to know his own nature? Was the Mormon god telling the truth when he claimed to be the lamb and the eternal father in 1830 or was he telling the truth when he claimed that the his son was the lamb in 1837?

 

[Jay53]

I certainly don’t understand the Catholic belief, nor probably ever will on this particular teaching, nor do I agree that the apostles taught it.

I didn’t say you had to agree with the Catholic teaching or even understand the Scriptures that support the Catholic belief. My point was that I thought you understood WHAT we believe - in the same way that I understand that Mormons believe their sacrament is symbolic and that any form (i.e. crackers & water) can be used. Clearly I don’t agree with that, but I understand that it is WHAT you believe.

I also understand you don’t agree that the apostles taught it, but that is your prerogative. You have been misled and simply refuse to view the Scriptures outside Joseph Smith’s distortions. Again, that is your prerogative.

Christ knows the thoughts of the heart and the prayers that arise from a sincere heart, and thus is as present as His presence can be for people who pray and seek His guiding influence as they repent and seek to follow Him, other than being seen, which some few have had happen but that didn’t make it any more real than for those who haven’t seen Him personally. There is not a gradation of how His presence is communicated to people, other than that those with greater faith can have a purer feeling that He is near and is strengthening them as they seek to follow Him.

I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Christ certainly does know the thoughts and prayers of everyone. But that does not diminish His presence in the Eucharist or the graces one receives when they receive Him in the Eucharist. My point was that the BoM denies these graces (and the graces imparted through Reconciliation, both of which ARE found in the Bible) to those who follow it (BoM)- so the statement that the BoM brings one “nearer to God” than the Bible is false.

Have a great day!