Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[Ramed]

rod of iron]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?

If you are convinced without any evidence, then you are reacting on feelings or what you choose to believe. It’s the same thing.

 

[darcee]

Ramed:

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?

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

Geee I have never gotten that feeling in my many readings of the BoM… does that mean the Holy Spirit hates me?

-D

 

[darcee]

Flower_Charity:

when i use the book of mormon to wipe myself, or blow my nose, i know it works best, it feels wonderful. this is my testimony, use the book of mormon for toliet paper or tissue paper -it’s fantastic.

That is so horrible.

I remember after I left the LDS church for a couple years I had my “temple garments” read LDS special undies. in a drawer. It took a while before I could just toss them in the trash. I wasn’t quiet sure how to dispose of them and I hate tossing something perfectly useable.

I would have a hard time doing anything destructive to any book.

-D

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

lol…okay, now the curiosity meter is registering dangerously high…Dare I even ask you to expound on the special undies? :whacky:

 

[darcee]

They are underwear with special markings that LDS adults who have gone through the LDS temple wear under their regular clothing. They are reported to protect the wearer and serve as a reminder that you have gone through the temple.

The top is much like a normal short sleeved T-shirt the bottom sort of like bike shorts only loose… maybe cut off long johns. They are supposed to go to the knee but they are cut for short fat women or something mine always hit mid thigh. I was told you could order them special cut longer… but I never took the time to do so.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

Count Chocula:

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.

Why would the Holy Spirit tell the Nephites that Christ would be born in Bethlehem if they didn’t know about that town and had no way to find out about it? There were no telephones, televisions, computers, or any global media whatsoever available to the Nephites. Telling the Nephites that Christ would be born in Bethlehem would be the same as if someone told you something was going to happen in a city that you had never heard of nor could find out about. The generation of Nephites that were given that prophecy of Christ had been told down through the generations that their ancestor, Lehi, and his family had come to this new land from the Land of Jerusalem. They knew of their father’s land by what they had been told about their ancestors. When they were told that Christ would be born in the Land of Jerusalem, they could make a mental connection which gave them a background for understanding the birth of Christ.
Count Chocula:

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.

The Book of Mormon does give a detailed response, but it was given in terminology the Nephites would understand, not the terminology that the Jews in Israel would understand.
Count Chocula:

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.

It’s a funny thing. If the Book of Mormon in Alma 7:10 had said that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, you would say that the book is false because Joseph Smith already had the information to put in the Book of Mormon when he allegedly wrote it. But since the Alma 7:10 does not say that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, but rather, the Land of Jerusalem, you claim that the book is false because it makes a mistake about the birth of Christ. Therefore, you have placed this matter into a no-win situation. Basically, concerning Alma 7:10, the book is wrong if it says Bethlehem and wrong if it doesn’t. This is an unfair test, because there is no way for the Book of Mormon to be vindicated on this matter.

 

[Ramed]

rod of iron:

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

Rod of Iron let me remind you of the King Follett Discourse. You can buy this at any LDS Store.

King Follett Discourse " I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see,"

" God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in younder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam wa created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" (King Follett Discourse)

Compare this discourse to the verses in Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9-10

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God you wouldn’t have these contradictions. I hate to seem uncharitable, but Joseph Smith has Fraud written all over him.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

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

Darcee,

I never said that the Book of Mormon doesn’t have the word “chickens” in it. I am saying that the Book of Mormon never says that anyone at the time in the Book of Mormon lands actually had chickens. You are just speculating that the Nephites must have had chickens for them to understand what Jesus was telling them. But this is your opinion. You cannot condemn the Book of Mormon for mentioning something it does not mention.

 

[darcee]

It mentions chickens which would only make sense if the people’s of the BoM knew what chickens were. Since they didn’t keep them and had never been around them it would be senseless for someone, even someone familiar with chickens, to talk about them. Some native fauna would have been used instead. Now if you are totally brainwashed you can believe any nonsense you want.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

Ramed:

Rod of Iron let me remind you of the King Follett Discourse. You can buy this at any LDS Store.

King Follett Discourse " I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see,"

" God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in younder heavens. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam wa created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" (King Follett Discourse)

Compare this discourse to the verses in Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9-10

If Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God you wouldn’t have these contradictions. I hate to seem uncharitable, but Joseph Smith has Fraud written all over him.

The problem with this argument is that it is not proved that Joseph Smith spoke the words that are in the King Follett Discourse. Here are some things to consider.

1. The men who wrote down what he supposedly spoke was writing in long hand. A person can speak a whole paragraph in the time it takes to write a sentence in long hand. Ever try to takes notes of a lecture?
2. The sermon was said to be 2 1/2 hours long. Such a length would make it questionable what was really said.
3. The men who transcribed this sermon apparently already believed what they claim was spoken by Smith in this sermon.
4. Smith’s personal secretary at the time afterward stated that Smith did not preach what was written in this King Follett Discourse.
5. The King Follett sermon was not published until more than a month after Joseph Smith’s murder, which would make it impossible for Smith to correct the sermon’s inaccurracies.

Besides this questionable King Follett Discourse, please find other instances where Smith stated that God was once a man. The Bible requires that there be two or three witnesses to establish a fact. If Smith indeed believed that God was once a man, he would have stated it more than once. Where are these other instances?

 

[darcee]

Interesting reasoning there. You seem to be saying “If I don’t agree with it Joseph Smith didn’t say it.”

You aren’t claiming to be a prophet yourself are you?

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

It mentions chickens which would only make sense if the people’s of the BoM knew what chickens were. Since they didn’t keep them and had never been around them it would be senseless for someone, even someone familiar with chickens, to talk about them. Some native fauna would have been used instead. Now if you are totally brainwashed you can believe any nonsense you want.

-D

Are you trying to brainwash me? It isn’t working.

If you would re-read what Jesus said in 3 Nephi when He spoke to them about hens and chickens, He told them that He was telling them what He had told the people in Jerusalem prior to His death. Since He was telling the Nephites what He had told the people in Jerusalem, it would make no sense for Him to change His analogy of the hens and chickens, because He would no longer be telling the Nephites exactly what He had told the people in Jerusalem. Again, read the Book of Mormon again. You are missing parts of it.

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

Are you trying to brainwash me? It isn’t working.

If you would re-read what Jesus said in 3 Nephi when He spoke to them about hens and chickens, He told them that He was telling them what He had told the people in Jerusalem prior to His death. Since He was telling the Nephites what He had told the people in Jerusalem, it would make no sense for Him to change His analogy of the hens and chickens, because He would no longer be telling the Nephites exactly what He had told the people in Jerusalem. Again, read the Book of Mormon again. You are missing parts of it.

So you are supposing he would talk about creatures they knew nothing about… interesting logic, faulted to the core but interesting.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Interesting reasoning there. You seem to be saying “If I don’t agree with it Joseph Smith didn’t say it.”

You aren’t claiming to be a prophet yourself are you?

-D

Darcee, the whole King Follett sermon is suspect. If that is the only document you can find to say that Joseph Smith believed God was once a man, what would lead Smith to all of a sudden believe this just prior to his death? What would cause this change in belief? Why would this information be included in a funeral service? Have you attended a funeral service where the minister or priest speaks on the nature of God that is not in agreement with the already believed doctrine of God?

 

[darcee]

But are you a prophet? … that was my only question

I have met plenty of people who agree with your BoM chickens and all who give full credit to the King Follett sermon.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

So you are supposing he would talk about creatures they knew nothing about… interesting logic, faulted to the core but interesting.

-D

In the interest of being totally accurate? Yes. You cannot be accurate about something you have said if you are going to change a part of it. There is nothing faulty about this logic. In a court of law, when giving your testimony, would you change a part of it if the people in the court did not know what you were talking about? If you did, you would be perjuring yourself.

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

In the interest of being totally accurate? Yes. You cannot be accurate about something you have said if you are going to change a part of it. There is nothing faulty about this logic. In a court of law, when giving your testimony, would you change a part of it if the people in the court did not know what you were talking about? If you did, you would be perjuring yourself.

He wasn’t in a court of law he was teaching people… how is someone supposed to understand an analogy based on something they have never seen?

It would be like me saying “I love my children like a walloppoppi mother.” For all you know walloppoppi eat their offspring.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

But are you a prophet? … that was my only question

I have met plenty of people who agree with your BoM chickens and all who give full credit to the King Follett sermon.

-D

And I bet they are all Mormons, too. One need not subscribe to both views or neither views. Whether the Nephites had chickens has no bearing on whether the King Follett sermon is accurate.

 

[agname]

rod of iron:

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

As a cousin of Joseph Smith…and from his apparitions to me…I informed you the BoM is fictitious.

 

[agname]

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…you’re in denial. Michael Coe is considered of the best in the ethnohistory of Mesoamerica…the historical archaeology of the northeastern United States…and writing systems.

Understand, that just because an archeologist disproves the historical accuracy of a book…a book that boasts of its alleged “accuracy”…doesn’t mean the individual is against the book. It’s like saying that scientists at the NEC Research Institute…who broke the speed of light (they used a light beam…to break the speed of light by a factor of 300)…had a vendetta against Einstein and his theory of special relativity. These men are in the pursuit of knowledge.

I’ve shown that even the SMITHSONIAN…its research team conclude:

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World–probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age–in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

(Continue for Truth)