Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

[Jerusha]

Thank you for your considerate response.

 

[Paul_G]

Hi Jerusha

I just wanted to wish you well on national aboriginal day.

Paul

 

[Jerusha]

And the Catholic Church has come a long way!!

I am just glad I can now expose the truth, and my feelings, without unreasonable fear of retaliation. We have lived in fear long enough.

 

[wademann]

www.whyprophets.com

I saw this website on another thread. This is a great site. Just more things to consider. In the other thread most posters just laughed it off, but there is some very strong evidence, that can’t be waived off as unintelligent jibberish.

 

[oat_soda]

**The Advantages of Mormonism:
**Some of the reasons why the Mormon Church stands head and shoulders above all others are as follows:

1. 
   *]It has a living prophet. Therefore it can present a clear message, with authority for itself, and not have to rely on the usual claims.
   *]For the same reason, it can act together and speak with a clear voice.
   *]And for the same reason, it can adapt (and receive revelation for) new circumstances.
   *]Which explains why science is such a strong point for Mormons.
   *]It does not have a fixed creed – each person is entitled to their own revelation. This allows for great freedom (discussed elsewhere on this page).
   *]It is in harmony with the Bible, and can easily be seen as fulfilling numerous Bible prophecies.
   *]It is supported by other great discoveries, such as the Book of Mormon.

1. 
   

   8.   It has a theology that makes sense (see bottom of page).

   this is the most insane thing i have ever read! it’s a joke right???

 

[iwonder]

oat soda:

this is the most insane thing i have ever read! it’s a joke right???

No it is not a joke. And I would like to point out here that the Catholic church also has a living prophet, the same one we’ve had for two thousand years, Jesus Christ. What in the world could Joseph Smith possibly have to offer as a prophet that Jesus Christ already has not? What in the world does anyone need with another prophet, if they already have Jesus Christ? Why look for more revelations and prophets when you already have everything you need in Jesus Christ? Please explain. I don’t want to argue whether Joseph Smith killed or was killed, or how many wives he had, or what happened at the Carthage jail. What I want to know is why would God even reveal anything to Joseph Smith when he already revealed all in Christ? Remember Him- Jesus Christ? He is living quite well, thank you. Ironically, his death on the Cross proved that. So why even go reading and looking at Joseph Smith when you already have it all?

 

[BJRumph]

No, it is not a joke. Many mormons use or cite similar lists all of the time, especially #1. Too bad it is the weakest link in actual practice.

I often found the Why Prophets cite to be interesting and comforting when a happy mormon, but in the final analysis, the “history” provided is of the same type of scolasticism that suggests that the Holy Grail is the actual bloodline of Christ, and was protected by the Templars-turned-Freemasons, who secretly protect the actual heir of Christ, who is of the House of Stuart…Fun reading, but not something I’d cite in a research paper

Still, despite holding to the mormon (and sometimes Protestant) view that the RCC corrupted and polluted the Gospel as the beast, they did go out of their way to show readers that Catholics, themselves, are not evil or servants of the beast.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

No, it is not a joke. Many mormons use or cite similar lists all of the time, especially #1. Too bad it is the weakest link in actual practice.

I often found the Why Prophets cite to be interesting and comforting when a happy mormon, but in the final analysis, the “history” provided is of the same type of scolasticism that suggests that the Holy Grail is the actual bloodline of Christ, and was protected by the Templars-turned-Freemasons, who secretly protect the actual heir of Christ, who is of the House of Stuart…Fun reading, but not something I’d cite in a research paper

Still, despite holding to the mormon (and sometimes Protestant) view that the RCC corrupted and polluted the Gospel as the beast, they did go out of their way to show readers that Catholics, themselves, are not evil or servants of the beast.

I wish I could say for sure that we believed the same about Mormons, but I can’t. Are they servants of the beast or evil? Hmmm. They want us not to accept the evidence of Jesus Christ. That is not enough. It is not enough to have the ten commandments or the holy scripture. No. It is not enough to have Christ. We must also have gold plates, interpreted in the Hebrew, with the help of the ancient Egyptians, and Joseph Smith.
One of the hallmarks of the beast is that he is avaricious and greedy. Because he lacks gratitude for the good things God has already given. Is it possible that Joseph Smith was simply ungrateful to God, couldn’t find any treasure, rebelled against Christ and formed his own Church? And that he has lots of company. There is Amy Semple McPherson, Mary Baker Eddy, Ron Hubbard etc, etc. etc. Most Protestants accept Jesus Christ as the only prophet they need. What the Mormons discuss is way beyond the scope of Protestant or Catholic, period.Extreme ungratitude. They prefer a guy who resigned himself to die in the name of Mormonism calmly because he did not have enough guns compared to the number of guns who attacked him.
Jesus did not even try to fire a shot. He FULLY accepted martyrdom for them, entirely out of love for them, not because he lacked the ammo to stave off the Roman soldiers, and still they need Joseph Smith. Incredible. I wish I could say all Mormons are not to be blamed for the beastly nature of THEIR church. I wish I could say that. Because Jesus loved them so much he died for them and I know it’s a sin to condemn. On the other hand, should not one reject and renounce with all their might that which also wants Catholics to learn to exercise the same ingratitude?

 

[BJRumph]

Because in mormon theology, Christ did not come here to reveal anything to us, but to fulfill the Atonement. Though He lived perfectly, He did not necessarily teach us everything, though it is a common belief that he did reveal everything, but it was suppressed by you-know-who, and JS just “restored” it. Christ is the “meridian” not the “fullness”.

What I find odd is the common belief that the eternal marriage sealings of the Temple are also a restoration of ancient temple practice; despite being hailed in the D&C as the “New and Everlasting Covenant”. Even Christ is said to have been sealed in the temple, otherwise “he couldn’t have perfectly lived the gospel.”

Originally (PR-wise), everything was just a “restoration”; then JS started creating new stuff, so Christ necessarily had to stop being the the fulness, but become the meridian (not that you will ever hear that from the PR office/Missionaries, or even most members). It is also clear, if any of them actually thought about the ramifications of it, from their Articles of Faith, that God still has not revealed the “fullness” of the Gospel, for they are still waiting for even more.

In mormon thought, Christ lived the Law perfectly, despite the fact that the law is still being written.

 

[BJRumph]

Iwonder; just for clarity, I am a recent ex-mormon. I happen to agree that it is too much, and ultimately hateful to God and Christ’s love for us. The mormon gospel, in total, completely rejects the notion that Christ is the fullness of Life. Unfortunately, the church leads its converts away, “line by line, precept upon precept”.

Problem doctrines are examined individually and in isolation. Once you come to see the “light” that that one thing is at least believable, or possible (either of which makes it “true enough”), then you move on to the next one. Add in a healthy dose of sentimentality and over-attachment to family, and down mormon trail you go.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

Iwonder; just for clarity, I am a recent ex-mormon. I happen to agree that it is too much, and ultimately hateful to God and Christ’s love for us. The mormon gospel, in total, completely rejects the notion that Christ is the fullness of Life. Unfortunately, the church leads its converts away, “line by line, precept upon precept”.

Problem doctrines are examined individually and in isolation. Once you come to see the “light” that that one thing is at least believable, or possible (either of which makes it “true enough”), then you move on to the next one. Add in a healthy dose of sentimentality and over-attachment to family, and down mormon trail you go.

Thank you for your honesty. I agree with completely on this because I was told in order to go down “mormon trail” one first has to invite the “problem” in. It’s practically a willing of it. And I kind of wonder, then, is it wise to be doing what we are doing on this forum with LDS? Is it a direct invite to ykw? It’s makes sense discuss things in the Eastern and Orthodox Church threads. I’m not sure of the sensibility or prudence of Catholics discussing Mormonism with Mormons. I’ve always had a problem with this because I’m wondering if being on a forum like this is an invite to you know who, but then I see the Catholics opened the forum, I’m thinking I must be behind the times or something.

 

[iwonder]

BJRumph:

Because in mormon theology, Christ did not come here to reveal anything to us, but to fulfill the Atonement. Though He lived perfectly, He did not necessarily teach us everything, though it is a common belief that he did reveal everything, but it was suppressed by you-know-who, and JS just “restored” it. Christ is the “meridian” not the “fullness”.

What I find odd is the common belief that the eternal marriage sealings of the Temple are also a restoration of ancient temple practice; despite being hailed in the D&C as the “New and Everlasting Covenant”. Even Christ is said to have been sealed in the temple, otherwise “he couldn’t have perfectly lived the gospel.”

Originally (PR-wise), everything was just a “restoration”; then JS started creating new stuff, so Christ necessarily had to stop being the the fulness, but become the meridian (not that you will ever hear that from the PR office/Missionaries, or even most members). It is also clear, if any of them actually thought about the ramifications of it, from their Articles of Faith, that God still has not revealed the “fullness” of the Gospel, for they are still waiting for even more.

In mormon thought, Christ lived the Law perfectly, despite the fact that the law is still being written.

Excuse me, but what is a meridian? Is that a mediator? I’m sorry, but when I listen to a lot of this, it truly does remind me of my grandfather’s freemasonry books. He was high degree and when
I read his stuff it was full of multidunous High shepherds and chief shepherds, and four directions with a lot of cosmic stuff thrown in. For the life of me I can’t see a difference between the stuff in his Freemason books and Mormonism, except mormonism is a much more highly developed and expanded theme. For example meridians, sealings and so forth are very much the type of language used in freemasonry. The same type of ideas. It’s incredible.

 

[iwonder]

wademann:

Wasn’t Jesus arrested? Is that your irrefutable evidence? I see these same old tired stories get thrown out, that have already been refuted, maybe not to your satisfaction, but to a few million mormons satisfaction. This is not irrefutable. Joseph Smith had many enemies in which satan could use to do his bidding. If this is the true church, wouldn’t you think that the forces of evil would do anything to stop it’s growth? But through all these years of persecution and anti-mormon reteric, it continues to grow. If you look at the history of the church there is no way it should have survived, but it has. How do you explain that? Look at the link in casen’s earlier post, in the section about BOM nuggets. Can you refute all of that?

Growth is not proof of anything. Islam continues to grow and it is the second largest religion in the world. I doubt that they would think much of Joseph Smith.
Jehovah Witnesses continue to grow and they are not much interested in Joseph Smith or Christ either.
The church of Christ Science continues to grow.
And Semple McPherson- My family was there at Aimee’s all those years ago when my parents witnessed her putting balloons under people’s shirts back stage and then calling for miraculous healings on stage and sticking the balloons with a straight pin the audience could not see. She would, to great applause, then declare the balloon wearer healed of lung cancer. Ron Hubbard was one of her disciples and scientology is growing fast. The originators are also growing very, very rich.
Do you think growing in size despite persecution is a proof of the Mormon truths? For heavens sake, Catholics have been burned, stretched on racks, imprisoned, tortured, blinded and the Church continues to grow and grow and grow. So are you sure you want to use the growth of the Mormon church under persecution as a proof of truth?

 

[wademann]

iwonder:

Growth is not proof of anything. Islam continues to grow and it is the second largest religion in the world. I doubt that they would think much of Joseph Smith.
Jehovah Witnesses continue to grow and they are not much interested in Joseph Smith or Christ either.
The church of Christ Science continues to grow.
And Semple McPherson- My family was there at Aimee’s all those years ago when my parents witnessed her putting balloons under people’s shirts back stage and then calling for miraculous healings on stage and sticking the balloons with a straight pin the audience could not see. She would, to great applause, then declare the balloon wearer healed of lung cancer. Ron Hubbard was one of her disciples and scientology is growing fast. The originators are also growing very, very rich.
Do you think growing in size despite persecution is a proof of the Mormon truths? For heavens sake, Catholics have been burned, stretched on racks, imprisoned, tortured, blinded and the Church continues to grow and grow and grow. So are you sure you want to use the growth of the Mormon church under persecution as a proof of truth?

 

[wademann]

iwonder:

Growth is not proof of anything. Islam continues to grow and it is the second largest religion in the world. I doubt that they would think much of Joseph Smith.
Jehovah Witnesses continue to grow and they are not much interested in Joseph Smith or Christ either.
The church of Christ Science continues to grow.
And Semple McPherson- My family was there at Aimee’s all those years ago when my parents witnessed her putting balloons under people’s shirts back stage and then calling for miraculous healings on stage and sticking the balloons with a straight pin the audience could not see. She would, to great applause, then declare the balloon wearer healed of lung cancer. Ron Hubbard was one of her disciples and scientology is growing fast. The originators are also growing very, very rich.
Do you think growing in size despite persecution is a proof of the Mormon truths? For heavens sake, Catholics have been burned, stretched on racks, imprisoned, tortured, blinded and the Church continues to grow and grow and grow. So are you sure you want to use the growth of the Mormon church under persecution as a proof of truth?

I just used growth as something that could go together with other circumstancial evidence, that adds up to a preponderence of evidence for the truth of the BOM. You guys crack me up, you jump on one thing and then you beat it into the ground, as if nothing else exists and you do it with such venom. I could do the same with any religion. Do you think the LDS religion has any truth? Did you look at the part about the scientists? There are people that are more intelligent than both of us put together that believe in the BOM. I’m not saying that proves beyond a doubt that it’s true, just some more evidence. You guys should lighten up, you come off as way to superior.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BJ Colbert:

Thank you Jerusha, After reading some of these threads, it seems the whites got the worst of it, but it also reads like any settlers who had Indian problems and did not know how to stay alive without fighting for their lives. I am watching the TV series on TNT called “Into the West” It really brings to life the trials and injustices suffered by settlers and Indians alike. Mormons were not the only ones settling the west and dealing with the inherant dangers. There are many positive, good stories also, if you care to find them. Just as there are good stories about the Catholics settling Mexico, and California among the murderous ones. It is so with any movement to settle a new country. You will find these kinds of stories throughout the Bible and throughout history. Do the Romans apologize for conquering most of the world as in the Roman Empire? Do the British apologize for conquering the lands that made up the British Empire?

On some occasions - yes, there have been apologies - but what of it ? In a religion based on the grace of Christ, it is immaterial to our own actions how others behave: whether they apologise when they ought to - or not. A Christian’s behaviour is not dependent on the good behaviour of other Christians​

 

[iwonder]

wademann:

I just used growth as something that could go together with other circumstancial evidence, that adds up to a preponderence of evidence for the truth of the BOM. You guys crack me up, you jump on one thing and then you beat it into the ground, as if nothing else exists and you do it with such venom. I could do the same with any religion. Do you think the LDS religion has any truth? Did you look at the part about the scientists? There are people that are more intelligent than both of us put together that believe in the BOM. I’m not saying that proves beyond a doubt that it’s true, just some more evidence. You guys should lighten up, you come off as way to superior.

In answer to your question, no, I don’t think the LDS religion has any truth. Simple enough?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BJRumph:

No, it is not a joke. Many mormons use or cite similar lists all of the time, especially #1. Too bad it is the weakest link in actual practice.

I often found the Why Prophets cite to be interesting and comforting when a happy mormon, but in the final analysis, the “history” provided is of the same type of scolasticism that suggests that the Holy Grail is the actual bloodline of Christ, and was protected by the Templars-turned-Freemasons, who secretly protect the actual heir of Christ, who is of the House of Stuart…Fun reading, but not something I’d cite in a research paper

Still, despite holding to the mormon (and sometimes Protestant) view that the RCC corrupted and polluted the Gospel as the beast, they did go out of their way to show readers that Catholics, themselves, are not evil or servants of the beast.

If the CC is not the “great and abominable church” mentioned in the BoM - what is ?​

I thought the CC was the eeeeevil one - except in the view of the JWs, who don’t like *any *of the Churches at all, or the UN (though that may be a different beast - there are far too many beasts in Revelation; it’s very hard to keep track at times) ##

 

[BJRumph]

Iwonder:

According to what I have learned, Catholicism asserts that Christ came in the “fullness of times”, delivering the fullness of the Gospel.

In lds scripture, Christ came “at the meridian of time”, JS’s way of saying the “middle” or “median” of time (and related to JS’s stabbs at predicting when the End will come).

I originally avoided even reading these threads, but I did, and some questioners are asking legit questions, and receiving non-answers or outright lies. While I have no desire to get into long debates about it, for reasons that become apparent when dealing with mormon “apologetics”, I see no reason not to answer a sincere question or two. I also get hot under the collar when I see too blatant misinformation being shoveled out. So, you won’t see me ranting about weather the CoJCoLDS owns stock in the Coca Cola company; but I will interject when it is suggested that the church does not teach INSERT LDS DOCTRINE OF CHOICE HERE when it really does; or that INSERT RIDICULOUS CLAIM HERE is asserted that is blatantly not true.

The way I look at it, they have enough true things that are wrong, that you really have no need to make stuff up. Besides, anyone can point out heretics in other faiths doing stupid stuff and it not be an actual reflection of the true faith, so how does it hurt the LDS to do the same with its apostates, like the fundie polygamists? I’d prefer sticking to substantial stuff, like doctrine or scriptures.

And, as to ykw; it was the Grace of God that awakened me to my error, and lead to my repentance, not the influence of human argument (as I, like most internet mormons, was far beyond that); so I am not terribly worried. It is also the other reason that I find “debating” with mormon apologists pointless; no amount of logic, fact, Truth, or reason will sway a mormon from the church, unless God gives it to them. May the Grace of God bless them all!

If I don’t engage directly in proving it one way or the other, just report what I know from being a member, then I am not opening any doors for ykw to bring me back into the fold, especially on this board.

And, truthfully, I will slowly begg off of this area of the forums, as I do not have access to my lds sources anymore, and I am not gonna waste my time hunting them on the internet, just to nail a particularly slippery apologist down whith what the church really teaches with actual citations, I’ll just stick to the old noggin and that will have to be enough for such informal dialogs. Fianlly, I am more interested in becoming a Catholic than in becoming a professional Anti-Mormon.

And I totally agree with you on this; Numbers do not prove the truth of the LDS Gospel; only the effectiveness of its marketing program.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mormon fool:

I appreciate you attempting to make sense of “Alma”. I agree that availability is very relevant. Alma was readily available and understood in a feminine sense. Not even those that knew Hebrew would recognize Alma as a masculine term. This usage had to established much later.

English and accessible Hebrew are the proper frame of reference for those who think Joseph Smith was making it up. The Crimean War Alma is a piece of non-evidence. Another continent and after the Book of Mormon, i.e., no direct connection.

Fair enough - I just like to mention all items that might even conceivably be relevant ​

I should have been more explicit - my point in citing the Crimean Alma was, to underline the non-specific character of the verbal element “Alma”: it can be resolved into a Hebrew male name, but need not be; yet it can be perfectly intelligible within the narrative within which it appears.

An example from a different book - the place-name Erech appears in the Hebrew Bible in Genesis. It also appears in “The Lord of the Rings” - which purports to be an English translation of an Elvish text.

A Tolkienomane might argue thus: because the Erech in Genesis is Hebrew, therefore, so must the Erech in the LOTR be. He would have to explain how a Hebrew name GN (= geographical name) appears in a text which, according to the account he believes, purports to be in Elvish. He would admit, that no one has ever seen the Elvish originals; and that the Erech in LOTR has a GN in a land with a recognisably Elf-influenced culture.

The Tolkienomane might reasonably be accused of not being able to distinguish between fact and fantasy - Erech may be in a land which is full of Elvish GNs: but that land is an invented land: one cannot argue from the reality of Hebrew, to the reality of persons bearing personal names which can be understood as Hebrew. Stil less can one use LOTR as an archaeological or historical text, despite the amount of cultural and (seemingly) historical detail

To add to the complexity - “Erech” in Genesis is a Hebrew form of the Babylonian GN “Uruk” - Babylonian in geography & in language. And “uruk”, also appears in LOTR, as part of a name for the orcs; but the connection is one of words, not one of realities - orcs are not places, & Babylonian is not spoken in Tolkien’s Middle Earth.

The actual historical existence of Uruk is no guarantee that the verbal element “uruk” denotes or must denote in LOTR what it means in Babylonian - there is no GN “Uruk” in LOTR; only “Erech”. And no one would argue that because there is an historical Erech in the Bible, therefore, the LOTR Erech is equally historical. There is a black stone at the Erech in Middle Earth - this is no reason to think there must be a similar stone at the Biblical one, which is Uruk in Babylonia.

Sorry to labour the point - I get the impression that these distinctions between possibility and actuality, aren’t always kept in mind. Fiction and fact may sometimes have the same outward form and details - it does not follow that because a number of details are historically real, all are. Nor can one argue that because a reality - say, WW1 - is referred to in a fiction, WW1 is also a fiction. ##

I make the same distinction between evidence and proof. I agree masculine Alma can be accounted for without conceding inspiration, however I find all such accounting ad hoc and unpersuasive.

PS: Let’s remember why exactly I brought “Alma” up. I did it to counter oat soda’s claim that Joseph Smith got all his Hebrew names from the Bible. I said the cumulative case has to be considered in response to Jerusha’s amusement about Moron-s.

PS: edit