Have you read the Book of Mormon?

[Nayrb]

I, xixxvmcm85, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was inculcated from a young age to read as my forebearers did, yea, even a verse a night before kneeling down to thank my Heavenly Father “for this lovely day”.

I used to not fancy doing so, having not the longstanding patience to endure repetitious language, yea, language that is longwinded, yea, that which causes sores to fester in the mouth, yea, even those one feigns in order to be relieved of one’s 5AM duty to head off to Seminary.

But it came to pass that I matured in my age and remembered what my mother would always say while slaving over a hot bowl of red water which would eventually become for us the jello of life: “Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it.”

Verily, verily I took this to heart and immediately went off unto my quarters to supplicate to the Lord. I begged for either the grace to continue or the mercy of deliverance!

And it came to pass that the school year ended shortly thereafter. My petition was granted. My 5AM plight was ended and lo, I beheld the glory of never having to memorize another 19th century fake KJVism until I would find myself a stranger in the land of the MTC.

And now I bid unto you all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of LazyBoy, until my socks and shoes shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant out of the chair, to meet the missionaries sent to fetch me, and drag me back kicking and screaming.

Let me guess… Marriot hotel?

Ummmmm. Are you OK?

Your post here was completely incomprehensible. What are you going on about?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ummmmm. Are you OK?

I’m absolutely fabulous! Thank you.

Your post here was completely incomprehensible. What are you going on about?

Was it, really? Granted, my sense of humor tends to be a bit off-color if not cryptic, but I should think that someone who is a professed Latter-day Saint would be able to spot the (at least three) embedded Book of Mormon quotes in my post and correctly classify it as tongue in cheek. Maybe you too didn’t pay much attention in Seminary?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I’m sorry that I’m not cherubic in my take of a false gospel. If you’re so fond of Mormonism, you don’t have far to go to join up. That is, if you’re not already.

What rites and rituals Mormons celebrate IS important for them…just as your rites and rituals performed in your tradition are important for you. I may disagree with both of you…but I believe your hearts are in the right place…you each seek to please God.

Hey hey hey! This is an apologetics board! There’s no room for sympathy here!

Again…a reference to me may being Mormon…just not telling anyone…wouldn’t that be dishonest? Are you suggesting that because I do not necessarily post in a “forceful…angry or rude” manner concerning Mormons…that I in fact must be one?

Par for the course, don’t you think? I’ve been suspected here of being a Muslim, a gay man, a socialist, an atheist, and a cafeteria Catholic (sometimes simultaneously). I say wear it as a merit badge. In fact. I now officially induce you into the “peripherally related Mormon club”.

Not sure how to post separate boxes…I’m not much of a “nerd” when it comes to computers.

It’s really super simple:

Embed your command in brackets, so if you want to quote someone, type:

quote ] (without the spaces)

then type (or paste) what it is you want to quote. End your command the same way you began it except with a slash preceding the command.

/quote ] (again, without the spaces)

This format works for text formatting as well. b ] blah blah blah /b ] (blah blah blah) makes text bold. i ] blah blah blah /i ] (blah blah blah) makes text italic. u ] blah blah blah /u ] blah blah blah makes text underline. image ] /image ] embeds an image. URL ] /URL ] embeds a link, etc (again, in all cases one must remove the spaces).

 

[Returning_Home]

Was it, really? Granted, my sense of humor tends to be a bit off-color if not cryptic, but I should think that someone who is a professed Latter-day Saint would be able to spot the (at least three) embedded Book of Mormon quotes in my post and correctly classify it as tongue in cheek. Maybe you too didn’t pay much attention in Seminary?

Umm, I’ve never been a Mormon and I caught some of the references, the first of which should be obvious to any LDS: “I, xixxvmcm85, having been born of goodly parents…” is from 1 Nephi 1:1, the most basic of all Mormon teachings. Here, Smith is establishing Nephi, a idealized version of himself and the hero of the story, as being one worthy of all the blessings bestowed upon him.

The second was “Verily, verily,” which is found several times in the BOM. The quote "“Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith…” is familiar but I can’t find it the exact chapter and verse.

Well done and mission accomplished. I laughed, I cried, it moved me.

 

[Returning_Home]

What rites and rituals Mormons celebrate IS important for them…just as your rites and rituals performed in your tradition are important for you. I may disagree with both of you…but I believe your hearts are in the right place…you each seek to please God.

I agree with what you said, but if Mormonism is based on lies, no matter how much they seek God, they’re not gonna find Him that way, are they? The god they will find, however, is weak but always progressing, though he’ll never get to the point that my God is at right now, the place He’s always been.

Again…a reference to me may being Mormon…just not telling anyone…wouldn’t that be dishonest? Are you suggesting that because I do not necessarily post in a “forceful…angry or rude” manner concerning Mormons…that I in fact must be one?

Yes, it would and it wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened either. That’s something common among Mormon apologists (though not all are intentionally dishonest). A few months ago, I called out someone who was pretending to be a Catholic when she was, in reality, a Mormon. To my knowledge, she hasn’t posted again under that username which means that he or she may very well still be here under another.

Not sure how to post separate boxes…I’m not much of a “nerd” when it comes to computers.

I’ll give you credit and assume you’re not calling me a nerd simply because I figured this out through practice. When you go to post, hit “quote” at the bottom of the post you’re responding to and it’ll give you the screen that shows the others person’s words. Simply highlight by holding down your left mouse button and then use the ctrl+c to copy the uppermost part that’ll say QUOTE=Publisher;7037942. It has to be enclosed in the and ] brackets (I can’t do that here because it won’t show it properly here, assuming that I’m quoting you) and then close it with the /QUOTE (putting the brackets and ] on either side.

Then to paste it, you simply hit ctrl+v. Ctrl+x will copy something but will allow you to remove it and put it somewhere else when you only need it only once. Ctrl+c allows you to copy something but leave it where you have it for later or for multiple uses.

When copying that QUOTE=Publisher;7037942 to show someone’s words, you have to isolate it from the rest of the text, and you can do that by simply hitting *enter *until it’s by itself.

I can even make my words look like yours or vice versa if I want to because what’s in those brackets is what determines the shaded part that denotes a quote. For example:

Since the BOM is purported to be a historical account of people who lived, thrived, and died, why hasn’t one single bit of evidence to confirm their existance ever been found anywhere? If the BOM is a lie, then everything based on it falls. And if Mormonism is correct, can you please explain to me the reason that Smith couldn’t ever once be accurate?

Again…a reference to me may being Mormon…just not telling anyone…wouldn’t that be dishonest? Are you suggesting that because I do not necessarily post in a “forceful…angry or rude” manner concerning Mormons…that I in fact must be one?

Most of the time it works, but once in a while, it doesn’t understand for whatever reason. The best way to get it is to practice. If you make a mistake, and you probably will in the course of figuring it out, no big deal. It took me a while to understand the little nuances of it but it’s not hard.

 

[Esdra]

The second was “Verily, verily,” which is found several times in the BOM.

The quote "“Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith…” is familiar but I can’t find it the exact chapter and verse.

Hi

it is frome Enos 1:15. The whole verse sounds like this:

15 Wherefore, I knowing that the Lord God was able to apreserve our records, I cried unto him continually, for he had said unto me: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive in the name of Christ, ye shall receive it.

AND Moroni 7:26

26 And after that he came men also were asaved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the bsons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you.

I think the Moroni 7:26 is better known the Enos 1:15. Although I have never talked to Mormon ministers or missionars, I can imagine that they quote this part of the BoM quite often!

BTW: Varily, varily also is to be found several times in the New Testament! Jesus often uses it!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[Barbkw]

I’ve never read B of M but for those who have, can someone explain Kolab.

An entire thread was removed today concerning a question about a study that said that Mormans would be the most able to accept extra terrestrial life being found.

examiner.com/mormon-history-in-salt-lake-city/mormonism-ready-for-e-t

I responded with the astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’s statement in which he said he could never be a Mormon because the B of M incorrectly states that life exists at the center of our universe.

A Mormon poster responded, saying that Mormon’s don’t believe in any such thing.

However, I found this at Wikipedia:

"The first published reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, first published in the 1842 newspaper Times and Seasons, and now included within the Pearl of Great Price as part of the canon of Mormonism. The Book of Abraham was dictated in 1836 by Latter Day Saint movement founder Joseph Smith, Jr., after he purchased a set of Egyptian scrolls that accompanied a mummy exhibition. When this exhibit passed through Smith’s town of Kirtland, Ohio, Smith was approached about the scrolls based on his reputation for having published translations of ancient texts such as the golden plates.

According to Smith, the scrolls described a vision of Abraham, in which Abraham:

“saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God;…and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.”[5]

In an explanation of an Egyptian hypocephalus that was part of the Book of Abraham scrolls, Joseph Smith interpreted one set of hieroglyphics as representing:

“Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.”[6]

The Book of Abraham describes a hierarchy of heavenly bodies,[7] including the earth, its moon, and the sun, each with different movements and measurements of time, where at the pinnacle, the slowest-revolving body is Kolob, where one Kolob-day corresponds to 1000 earth-years.[8] Additional, similar information about Kolob is found in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, constituting manuscripts in the handwriting of Smith and his scribes.

Dr. Hugh Ross’s statement concerning why life can not exist at the center of our universe can be found at:

cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Ross’s specific remarks concerning Mormonism states:

"That’s why I’m not a Mormon. Mormons tell us that life originated on a master planet right smack at the center of our galaxy. That’s probably also why I’ve never met a Mormon astronomer.

The stars at the center of our galaxy are jammed so tightly together that the mutual gravity would destroy the planetary orbits. Moreover, their synchrotron radiation would be destructive to life molecules. But we don’t want to be too far away from the center, either. If we get too far away, then there aren’t enough heavy elements from the exploded remains of supernovae to enable life chemistry to proceed.

There’s one life essential element that the supernovae do not make, however, and that’s Fluorine. Fluorine is made only on the surfaces of white dwarf binaries. A white dwarf is a burned out star. It’s like a cinder in a fireplace, just glowing.

Orbiting this white dwarf is a star that hasn’t yet exhausted its nuclear fuel. It’s an ordinary star, like our Sun. The white dwarf has enough mass relative to the ordinary star orbiting around it that it is capable of pulling mass off of the surface of the ordinary star and dragging it down so that it falls on its surface. When that material falls on the surface of the while dwarf, it ignites some very interesting nuclear reactions that produce Fluorine.

We need a white dwarf binary whose gravitational interactions between the white dwarf and the ordinary star are such that a strong enough stellar wind is sent from the white dwarf to blast the Fluorine beyond the gravitational pull of both stars, putting it into outer space, so that future generations of stars can absorb it. Then we have enough Fluorine for life chemistry. "

 

[LongJourney]

Today’s Mormons deny belief in Kolob and related cosmological speculations. It is not in the Book of Mormon. After the BoM was written, Mormon prophets went off on such speculations, but that thread within Mormonism has been abandoned in recent years, as Mormonism attempts to become more mainstream. Unlike Catholicism, Mormonism is a fluid system of belief, with very few stable core doctrines. You will not get a kind response on this subject from our Mormon posters.

It is in the Book of Abraham, historically considered to be scripture, but now in much disrepute. JS claimed to have translated some Egyptian papyri found with a mummy. These papyri have been re-discovered, and they have no similarity with the BoA. Remember that Egyptian hieroglyphics were initially translated during the same time-period as JS did his “interpretation” Again, this is a very sensitive issue to Mormons.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

When I joined the LDS church I was shocked to fine people in the “church” who never read the BoM or was just getting around to reading it. I was also shocked to hear the stake president at a stake conference tell the future missionaries they need to read the Book of Mormon at least once before a mission! I was like - Uh, should not they be reading it every day over and over like all members are supposed to do?

 

[Wesley7]

I once found it in the local library.

 

[LongJourney]

It is available in many places on the internet. Here is just one. bookofmormononline.org/

 

[JHow]

…It is in the Book of Abraham, historically considered to be scripture, but now in much disrepute. JS claimed to have translated some Egyptian papyri found with a mummy. These papyri have been re-discovered, and they have no similarity with the BoA. Remember that Egyptian hieroglyphics were initially translated during the same time-period as JS did his “interpretation” Again, this is a very sensitive issue to Mormons.

I have probed on this forum on exactly this question with no response. The story of translating egyptian hieroglyphic is well known (Champollion, Rosetta Stone, 1822, etc.). What qualifications did Smith possess to tranlate or interpret hieroglyphic (or demotic, for that matter) script? I can only assume that he had no qualifications and the translations were done by supernatural means - which simply removes the text from any scientific scrutiny. In the case of the gospels and other OT and NT texts, there are thousands of manuscript copies in a number of languages out in the world. These copies have a long history of preservation, study and scrutiny, much care and deliberation has been placed on trying to understand exactly what they say and mean, and in trying to translate them correctly in modern languages. For the BoM the original is missing. There are no other copies. There is only a translation, effected not by human reason, but by magical means. Champollion did not need magic to translate hieroglyphs - he used the powers of reason that God gave him. At the end of the day, the Mormon religion rests entirely on the credibility of Smith.

 

[LongJourney]

At the end of the day, the Mormon religion rests entirely on the credibility of Smith.

And that has been discussed extensively and heatedly on these boards. When we enumerate his shortcomings, some end up calling us JS-killers. :nope:

 

[PeanutBono]

We have a hymn in our hymn book called if I could Hie to Kolob but it not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
I am amazed at the amount of concern people have on this website about Mormon Theories which are deep in nature. We never talk about these things in church, our main focus is on how to become better fathers, husbands, sons and neighbors.
Here is the only doctrine that matters:
From 3rd nephi chapter 11
28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things ashould be done away.
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

I think this is doctrine that we of any faith can all agree on, we may interpret it differently and that is ok but the doctrine is pure.

 

[PeanutBono]

I have probed on this forum on exactly this question with no response. The story of translating egyptian hieroglyphic is well known (Champollion, Rosetta Stone, 1822, etc.). What qualifications did Smith possess to tranlate or interpret hieroglyphic (or demotic, for that matter) script? I can only assume that he had no qualifications and the translations were done by supernatural means - which simply removes the text from any scientific scrutiny. In the case of the gospels and other OT and NT texts, there are thousands of manuscript copies in a number of languages out in the world. These copies have a long history of preservation, study and scrutiny, much care and deliberation has been placed on trying to understand exactly what they say and mean, and in trying to translate them correctly in modern languages. For the BoM the original is missing. There are no other copies. There is only a translation, effected not by human reason, but by magical means. Champollion did not need magic to translate hieroglyphs - he used the powers of reason that God gave him. At the end of the day, the Mormon religion rests entirely on the credibility of Smith.

Never a truer statement. Joseph Smith was either a True Prophet or he was the biggest con man of all time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I voted other.

I am not a member of the LDS nor do I have plans on converting. I am wholly Catholic.

I would not have an issue reading the Book of Mormon, provided I had a copy, which I do not have.

 

[Returning_Home]

I have probed on this forum on exactly this question with no response. The story of translating egyptian hieroglyphic is well known (Champollion, Rosetta Stone, 1822, etc.). What qualifications did Smith possess to tranlate or interpret hieroglyphic (or demotic, for that matter) script?

His credentials are the same as his for being a prophet of God: none which means that everything he said and thus everything based upon those same words is nonsense and not divinely inspired whatsoever.

I can only assume that he had no qualifications and the translations were done by supernatural means - which simply removes the text from any scientific scrutiny. In the case of the gospels and other OT and NT texts, there are thousands of manuscript copies in a number of languages out in the world. These copies have a long history of preservation, study and scrutiny, much care and deliberation has been placed on trying to understand exactly what they say and mean, and in trying to translate them correctly in modern languages. For the BoM the original is missing. There are no other copies. There is only a translation, effected not by human reason, but by magical means. Champollion did not need magic to translate hieroglyphs - he used the powers of reason that God gave him. At the end of the day, the Mormon religion rests entirely on the credibility of Smith.

They, Mormons, would have you believe that the words came from God, not Smith but the fact of the matter is that the Book of Abraham has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be a sham. From the moment the church apologists learned of the papyrus being rediscovered, they started backpedalling, and Hugh Nibley took at least three different positions on it, desperately trying to explain the problems away, none of which were the least bit plausible.

If the translations were done through ‘magical means,’ that still wouldn’t explain the reason that God would want to issue new scripture in Elizabethan English. That wouldn’t make sense, nor would the fact that we find the New Testament and then-modern (for the 1800s) commentary about religious controversy.

Yes, you’re right in that the credibility rests squarely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith, a man who practiced folk magic, lied to his followers, cheated them, committed adultery with their wives, destroyed private property, and then killed two men before being murdered himself. That’s not exactly the type of pedigree we find for Daniel, Moses, or Abraham, is it?

 

[Returning_Home]

Here is the only doctrine that matters:
From 3rd nephi chapter 11…

Now if that were really true, what the church believed and practiced, we wouldn’t be here now. I noticed that what you forgot was any mention of exaltation, a huge part of Mormonism since every Mormon male wants to be a god like God.

 

[Barbkw]

*“Mormonism is a fluid system of belief, with very few stable core doctrines.” *

Not built then, on Rock.

Matthew 16:18

 

[LongJourney]

No, firmly founded on sand, blowing wherever it will go.