Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[rod_of_iron]

Ramed:

Rod of Iron, I have read through your arguments, and you have fallen very short on crediting the BOM. I really don’t blame you since your beliefs are based on feelings not facts.

Feelings? How can you be so sure that my belief in the Book of Mormon is based on feelings? I have never had this so-called “burning in the bosom”. Yet, I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. What feelings am I relying on, since you think you know me better than I know myself?

Ramed:

You believe in the book of Mormon, not because of any evidence, but because you feel it is true. You take Josephs Smith’s word for it.

I don’t take anyone’s word for it, especially Joseph Smith’s. I do not blindly follow something because someone else tells me it is true. On the contrary, it would seem that most of the people in this thread posting against the Book of Mormon are blindly following others who have claimed that it is not true, including what the Smithsonian has stated. When I read the Book of Mormon, the words of truth popped of the page to me, just like the words of the Bible did when I read it. Instead of relying of someone else’s view of the Book of Mormon, you should read it and get a testimony of your own either for it or against it. Don’t rely on a feeling. Rely on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Why not take Jesus on His word?

Ramed:

The evidence we do have is that Joseph Smith contradicted himself when he in the BOM states that God cannot change and 14 years later stated that God was once a man. A contradiction like this, in my mind would easily discredit anyone.

Where did Joseph Smith ever teach that God was once a man?

 

[rod_of_iron]

pnewton:

However, Joseph Smith had 19th century knowledge of all these facts and if you read the title of this discussion, you will see that your “strongest arguement” is a still begging the question.

He had 19th century knowledge of what facts? How is this begging the question?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Agname,

How does the opinions of people like Michael Coe concerning the Book of Mormon or the facts that people have left the LDS church based on their unrealistical deadlines they set, prove that the Book of Mormon is not true? Coe is clearly against the Book of Mormon, so his bias would be to show that the book is false no matter what proof may support it. If I cannot use any material for proof from those who believe in the Book of Mormon, you likewise cannot use material from those who are against the book to disprove the book. If we want to look at the Book of Mormon objectively, we must look at both sides of the issue and give each side equal weight. Otherwise, you are just creating a bias against any evidence that may support the Book of Mormon. If a beneficial discussion of the Book of Mormon is to take place, you must set aside your apparent hate for that book and those who believe it to be true.

 

[rod_of_iron]

agname:

Who started your Church?

My church?

The church of Jesus Christ / not sure of the exact year / Jesus Christ / established with Adam, after he was removed from the Garden of Eden

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

Hey Rod,

What do you accept as Scripture? Bible and BOM? What about D/C? Does your church have a creed or constitution?

-C

Sorry about this late reply.

I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture. I believe the sections of the RLDS D&C to be inspired scripture up through Section 144. After that section, the RLDS church began to fall into apostasy, because a new president of the church was ordained who was not listening to the voice of God. The RLDS D&C does not contain all the sections of the LDS D&C and none of the sections which support their strange beliefs, including sections 130 and 132.

I don’t believe my church has an official creed or constitution. But unofficially, we have a set of beliefs that are commonly believed among the members.

 

[pnewton]

rod of iron:

He had 19th century knowledge of what facts? How is this begging the question?

What facts? Where Jesus was born, the general location of Bethlehem, Jerusalem and environs, knowledge of how King James English “sounds”

Begging the question - the concept of this, for those not familiar with the term is as follows:

Question: IS THE BOOK OF MORMON A FRAUD? (faked)
If it is, then Joseph Smith is a fraud.
Joseph Smith could have known enough to fake the writing of the Book of Mormon(namely, he could have called the place of the birth of Jesus “the Land of Jerusalem”. Therefore, any argument that has relies on Joseph Smith not faking the whole thing, thus making the BOM fraudulent, is called begging the question.

 

[Katholikos]

TOm wrote:

Ex-Catholic Priest Jordan Vajda wrote a masters thesis on LDS beliefs in deification. Five years after this he became a LDS.

My bet is that Fr. Vajda has some psychological problems. A religion that REQUIRES marriage is in marked contrast to the Catholic priesthood that requires celibacy. One can draw one’s own conclusions about that!

Fr. Vajda, too, has been taken in by the Mormon promise that he can become a god.

 

[hawkeye]

Yes Fraud !!!

 

[pnewton]

Katholikos:

Fr. Vajda, too, has been taken in by the Mormon promise that he can become a god.

Didn’t Satan start that lie?

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

Apparently, you were asleep when you read it. You obviously do not know that the Book of Mormon never says that anyone at that time in America had chickens. You can claim that you have read the Book of Mormon, but your absurd claim of chickens being possessed by anyone shows that you don’t know the Book of Mormon much at all.

You might try actually reading the BoM yourself in 3 Nephi is says.

"O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you.

. . . how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not" (3 Nephi 10:3-5).

If they didn’t have chickens how would they know how they behave? Why wouldn’t they pick something familiar to make such a gentle analogy with.

Look it up yourself and stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you only does so because they haven’t read your book.

-D

 

[Sanosuke]

Rod of Iron
It’s funny. You people who do not believe the Book of Mormon demand evidence from those of us who do. You refuse to accept anything from scholars, historians, and archaeologists who already believe the Book of Mormon to be true. Yet, very few scholars, historians, and archaeologists who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true have any interest in finding out if it is true or not. So, how can the Book of Mormon believers proceed? By rejecting any research or findings by those scholars, historians, and archaeologists who believe in the Book of Mormon, you are already putting a bias on any evidence that can come forth to prove the Book of Mormon true. How can anyone prove anything on such a remarkably unlevel playing field?

Can you prove the Catholic church to be correct if I will not allow any evidence to be presented by anyone who was or is Catholic? Can you prove the Catholic church if I disallow anything from the early church fathers, saints, or scholars of the Catholic church? Can you prove the Bible to be true without any help from anyone who believes the Bible is inspired scripture (including the Jews who believe only in the Old Testament)? Well, can you?

And yet, it is not only Catholics who can go through the Bible and the wealth of historical documents from the early Church and confirm that events described at those times really did happen, locations mentioned really did exist, and methods of living were really done in that way. The history of the early Church is so well documented it is unbelievable. While there are hundreds upon thousands of extant writings from the Church Fathers and thousands of copies of the Bible, there are only 14 copies of the Illiad (the document with the second most remaining texts from that era) from the year 300 or earlier. I’d have to say the Catholic Church has some pretty solid historical ground to stand on. Catholic, Secular, and Mormon scholars alike can look at the evidence and see for themselves what those first years of Christianity contained. Can the Mormons do the same?

Where are the Mormon documents, locations, events, and ways of life to be found in the new world? So far, there is only one document that confirms the existence of the things talked about in the BoM, and that book is the BoM itself. The BoM is a late arriver on the scene, talking about events that occurred 1850 years before its discovery. To this day, the document/plates from which the BoM supposedly came is nowhere to be found. Sounds a little far-fetched to me.

 

[Katholikos]

rod of iron:

Sorry about this late reply.
I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture. I believe the sections of the RLDS D&C to be inspired scripture up through Section 144. After that section, the RLDS church began to fall into apostasy, because a new president of the church was ordained who was not listening to the voice of God. The RLDS D&C does not contain all the sections of the LDS D&C and none of the sections which support their strange beliefs, including sections 130 and 132.QUOTE]

QUOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL D&C/PEARL OF GREAT PRICE: The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelation and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days… The Book of doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price [which includes the Book of Abraham]. END QUOTE

The Doctrine & Covenants, including the sections you object to and deny as scripture, were written by the same Joseph Smith Jun. who produced all the rest of the D&C, not to mention the Book of Abraham and the rest of Mormon ‘scripture.’

One thing is certain: no one can be convinced against their will. No amount of logic or evidence will persuade you. You are determined to believe Joseph Smith Jun.in spite of clear evidence of the deceit and fraud in which he engaged during his lifetime. We can only hope that others who are tempted to fall into the clutches of Mormonism will read the truth and be saved from spiritual disaster.

For you, I will pray as Paul prayed for his dead friend Onesiphorus: “May the Lord grant [you] to find mercy from the Lord on that Day *” 2 Tm 1:18.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay*

 

[Katholikos]

rod of iron:

I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture. I believe the sections of the RLDS D&C to be inspired scripture up through Section 144. After that section, the RLDS church began to fall into apostasy, because a new president of the church was ordained who was not listening to the voice of God. The RLDS D&C does not contain all the sections of the LDS D&C and none of the sections which support their strange beliefs, including sections 130 and 132.

QUOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL D&C/PEARL OF GREAT PRICE:

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelation and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days… The Book of doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price [which includes the Book of Abraham]. END QUOTE

The Doctrine & Covenants, including the sections you object to and deny as scripture, were written by the same Joseph Smith Jun. who produced all the rest of the D&C, not to mention the Book of Abraham and all the rest of Mormon ‘scripture’ including the “corrected” KJV Bible.

One thing is certain: no one can be convinced against their will. No amount of logic or evidence will persuade you. You are determined to believe Joseph Smith Jun.in spite of clear evidence of the deceit and fraud in which he engaged during his lifetime. We can only hope that others who are tempted to fall into the clutches of Mormonism will read the truth and be saved from spiritual disaster.

For you, I will pray as Paul prayed for his dead friend Onesiphorus: “May the Lord grant [you] to find mercy from the Lord on that Day *” 2 Tm 1:18.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay*

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

TOm wrote:

My bet is that Fr. Vajda has some psychological problems. A religion that REQUIRES marriage is in marked contrast to the Catholic priesthood that requires celibacy. One can draw one’s own conclusions about that!

Fr. Vajda, too, has been taken in by the Mormon promise that he can become a god.

Let me hold you up as evidence of BIAS and …

I read this as saying that those who are intelligent and versed in Catholicism (as one who was graduated from Catholic seminary must be) must have “psychological problems” to become a LDS. You then demonstrate again that you do not understand LDS beliefs adequately.

Your understanding of this issue is far too simplistic for you to be considered an apologist or a guide for those who search. Claiming that someone has “psychological problems” solely because they disagree with you evidences to me that you are the one who had delusions of grandeur.

The simple fact is that objectively weighed the evidence does not create the type of foolishness that you seem to suggest it does.

The type of invective that you utilize may be cheered by those who already agree with you, but it has little worth in a real discussion. I hope you will one day see this.

And in response to the lure of becoming a god, I still invite additional and/or substantive comments (specifically associated with the spectrum of beliefs) on this thread concerning Catholic view of deification.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1624

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

QUOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL D&C/PEARL OF GREAT PRICE:

The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelation and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days… The Book of doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price [which includes the Book of Abraham]. END QUOTE

The Doctrine & Covenants, including the sections you object to and deny as scripture, were written by the same Joseph Smith Jun. who produced all the rest of the D&C, not to mention the Book of Abraham and all the rest of Mormon ‘scripture’ including the “corrected” KJV Bible.

One thing is certain: no one can be convinced against their will. No amount of logic or evidence will persuade you. You are determined to believe Joseph Smith Jun.in spite of clear evidence of the deceit and fraud in which he engaged during his lifetime. We can only hope that others who are tempted to fall into the clutches of Mormonism will read the truth and be saved from spiritual disaster.

For you, I will pray as Paul prayed for his dead friend Onesiphorus: “May the Lord grant [you] to find mercy from the Lord on that Day *” 2 Tm 1:18.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay*
If I hold you to the views of Catholics in the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) or to the views of Sedevacantist, would this seem reasonable to you (I am assuming that you are not part of these movements). Rod of Iron has tried to tell you his beliefs. He has not claimed to accept the PGP as scripture. That you continue to branch out to attack things he specifically does not defend or even believe could be viewed as evidence that you are not doing well addressing the topic at hand, namely the BOM.

Again, ROI is not mentally deranged because he does not agree with either you or me. And ROI has chosen to address your BOM thread. I encourage you to not branch out in an attempt to bolster your case.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

So why do you Mormons think Joseph Smith wasn’t invited to Rev. Moon’s Ceremony in the Spirit World (trueparents.org/acloudofwitnesses.htm)?

-C

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Katholikos:

Some Eastern rites of the Catholic Church allow priests to marry, but the Roman Rite (to which you, I, and Our Pope belong) has always embraced the vow of celibacy for priests.

Remember what Christ said about being eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom? This is the Roman Rite’s explanation of priestly celibacy and why NO ONE can be required to marry.

Just an aside.

Anyway, to my point. The Bible v. the Book of Mormon.

Why the Bible is inerrent, infallible, and the Word of God.
-First, the Old Testament was deemed the Word of God by God’s Chosen People, the Jews.
-The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers) are the Jews’ Holy Book
-The Bible is historically accurate
-The Bible has remained unchanged (by the Catholic Church) except for translations for 1600 years
-The Bible is perfectly consistent and prophecies that are made in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament (i.e., Psalm 22)
-The Old Testament is older than the New Testament
-The Church that Christ Himself granted sole authority to teach His Word deemed the Books of the Bible infallible

Why the Book of Mormon isn’t:
-The opposite of everything I just said.

Also, the Bible didn’t come with chapters or verses. The Catholic Church added those. The Bible didn’t come pre-packaged saying which books were inspired by God. The Holy Spirit guided the Church to decide this with the Authority of Christ.

When I talked to the Mormon missionaries a while back, I asked them why they thought the Bible was the Word of God, even though the Catholic Church which experienced an apostasy 300 years before She deemed it the Word of God. They said that they believe that any man can have a revalation. Fair enough. So what is stopping a man in upstate New York in the early 19th century to have a revalation? Nothing, and the Mormons I talked to said they believe ANY revalation said to come from God. Frankly, they could not find one reason why there “was” an apostasy, for, as the Bible is a testament, the Catholic Church of Christ was alive and very well after any such apostasy and is still very much alive with the fire of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

One more point, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, He used Bread and Wine as a sacrifice to God to become His Body and Blood. Where do Mormons get bread and water from? If from the BOM, this flies directly in the face of what Christ did. Basically, my question is, why are Mormons forbidden to consume alcohol if Jesus used it for us to remember His sacrifice?

If this doctrine is in the Book of Mormon, then add another nail to the coffin.

 

[Calvin]

Andrew Larkoski:

They said that they believe that any man can have a revalation. Fair enough. So what is stopping a man in upstate New York in the early 19th century to have a revalation? Nothing, and the Mormons I talked to said they believe ANY revalation said to come from God.

Which is why I wondered (in post 195) what the Mormons thought of Rev. Sun Moon’s Celestial Conference…

… check out the link – God even wrote a letter to Rev. Moon telling him he was the Messiah. How is that for proof? A letter from God telling you you are the Messiah…

… I wonder if God leaves out the vowels when he signs the tetragrammaton.

-C

 

[Count_Chocula]

rod of iron:

The Book of Mormon claimed that Jesus the Christ would be born in the Land of Jerusalem. I have already covered this in an earlier post in this thread. If the Book of Mormon would have said that He would be born in the City of Jerusalem, you would have a legitimate argument against the book. But the Nephites knew that area where Jesus was born as the Land of Jerusalem, even if it is not called that today. The Nephites that were given the prophecy about Christ obviously did not know about Bethlehem. This is obvious because the Book of Mormon does not contain the word “Bethlehem” even one time. For that town to be mentioned only once in Alma 7:10 would be totally out of context for the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the argument about Jesus being born in the Land of Jerusalem is one of the strongest argument in favor of that book.

But the Bible was specific in saying Christ was born in Bethlehem, I don’t see why the BoM wouldn’t be as specific. If the Nephites didn’t know where Christ was born exactly and guessed it was the Land of Jerusalem, and said it, then it ruins their credibility since the same Holy Spirit guiding the writers of the Bible made sure to include the exact town where Christ was born, not just the land he was in.

I think it is safe to assume that since the Bible itself gives a specific answer, the BoM under the assumption that it was written by the same God given inspiration would also include such a detailed response of where Christ was born.

Just because Bethlehem is mentioned no where else in the BoM is no reason for it to not be used in reference to Christ’s birth.