Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholikos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rod of iron:
Since the plates were written upon by someone other that Joseph Smith, I do not see how this could be a revelation to him.

We are not saying that he received information from God, such as by a Word of Knowledge, and then proceeded to write the Book of Mormon. We are saying that the only way he would have known about what is written in the Book of Mormon was after he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of the Eternal All-powerful God.
Click to expand...
A prophet, by definition, is someone who receives a revelation from God. Do you have a different understanding of the office of prophet? Don’t Mormons claim Joseph Smith was a prophet?

If he is a prophet, he received special (“specific”) revelation. There is nothing to argue about – this is semantics. We are using different words to say the same thing. If “he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of the Eternal All-powerful God” then, from the Reformed point of view, he “received special revelation.” The power of God revealed to Joseph Smith the specific way to translate the gold plates.

Remember we posit the idea of “special revelation” only to distinguish it from “general revelation.” Rational thought about nature (general revelation) can tell us there is a God and we should try to be nice to each other. Reason alone, however, cannot tell us about Jesus Christ. To learn about Christ we need “special (specific) revelation” contained in the Bible, transmitted by Church teachings or found in a direct communication from God (a vision). Mormons would add that we also need the message contained in the BOM and transmitted by the LDS president and apostles.

Reformed theologians would say that the contents of the BOM and the teachings of the LDS president and apostles (since they are considered to be prophets, yes?) are all “special revelation.”

-C

P.S. In a general sense I would affirm that the Bible was translated by the power of God. I would not affirm that any particular translation has been inspired. First off, in contrast to the BOM, there are literally thousands of translations of the Bible and I can just look at that thread about the new one recently endorsed by the Anglican ABC (“have a regular partner”) to know that they are not all good translations. I believe that the Bible contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God would not want that Gospel to be lost. So, in a sense, the power of God has guided the translators around the world throughout history. The Eastern Orthodox teach that the LXX was an inspired translation but I don’t know if they think other translations were done by the power of God. I don’t know what Catholics think on this either.
 
rod of iron:
To say a book is inerrant and is the Word of God is to deify that book. Jesus is the only one referred to as being the Word of God.
Click to expand...
We can agree on this. Most Reformed theologians would say the Bible “points to the Word of God” or “contains the Word of God.” The Anabaptists are the ones who say the Bible “is the Word of God.”

-C
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
Joseph Smith CHOOSE(sic) to go to a martyr’s death. This of itself is not the action of a fraud, but had he not perhaps he would have lived to 100 years of age.
Click to expand...
LOL!! A Martyr doesn’t go down gun’s a-blazing!!! Jospeh Smith didn’t go quietly to the executioner, he died in a gun battle. And, he did not choose his death. If he went to Carthage intending to give his life for his faith then why did he have guns smuggled into his cell??? He went to Carthage intending to LIVE. If Joseph Smith was a martyr then so was David Koresh. The fact is neither of them are martyrs.

Martyr:
One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

Joseph Smith did not choose to die and he wasn’t arrested for being a Mormon, he was arrested for treason. He was never even asked to renounce his faith. So, let’s stop calling him a martyr.
 
rod of iron:
These people relied heavily on the original manuscript and the printer’s manuscript which both precede the 1830 Book of Mormon. I believe that the original manuscript was completely accurate, but a great deal of it has deteriorated to the point that it cannot be used on its own. It was water damage.

Therefore, I believe the most correct version of the Book of Mormon existing on earth today is this RCE version that I am speaking of. This version can be found online at:
Click to expand...
Then you must believe that Mary is the mother of God as the 1830 Book of Mormon states.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
LOL!! A Martyr doesn’t go down gun’s a-blazing!!! Jospeh Smith didn’t go quietly to the executioner, he died in a gun battle. And, he did not choose his death. If he went to Carthage intending to give his life for his faith then why did he have guns smuggled into his cell??? He went to Carthage intending to LIVE. If Joseph Smith was a martyr then so was David Koresh. The fact is neither of them are martyrs.

Martyr:
One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

Joseph Smith did not choose to die and he wasn’t arrested for being a Mormon, he was arrested for treason. He was never even asked to renounce his faith. So, let’s stop calling him a martyr.
Click to expand...
What treason? Show me that you know what you are talking about, rather than make empty accusations against Joseph Smith.

Also, where is this alleged gun that Smith is supposed to have used? You’ll believe what anyone writes on paper, won’t you?
 
40.png
Tmaque:
Then you must believe that Mary is the mother of God as the 1830 Book of Mormon states.
Click to expand...
Yes, Mary is the mother of God in the flesh. This is what the Book of Mormon states. She is not the mother of God in the spirit, because God has no mother or father. He exists yesterday, today, and forever. This is clearly spelled out in the Book of Mormon.
 
Rod what you are saying is called the Nestorian heresy, which posits that Jesus was divided into two persons with two separate natures, human and divine. Nestorians taught that Mary was the mother of Jesus the human, but not Jesus the God.

Jesus is one, with two natures, he cannot be divided, this is called the hypostatic union. Mary is tthe Mother of the whole Jesus, so she is called the Mother of God.
 
40.png
Calvin:
A prophet, by definition, is someone who receives a revelation from God. Do you have a different understanding of the office of prophet? Don’t Mormons claim Joseph Smith was a prophet?
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith was a seer. This includes the ability of a revelator and a prophet. But a seer is much more than a revelator or a prophet. According to the Book of Mormon, “a seer is a revelator, and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater, can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which have past, and also of things which are to come; And by them shall all things be revealed, or rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known, shall be made known by them; And also, things shall be made known by them, which otherwise could not be known.”
40.png
Calvin:
If he is a prophet, he received special (“specific”) revelation. There is nothing to argue about – this is semantics. We are using different words to say the same thing. If “he translated the Book of Mormon by the power of the Eternal All-powerful God” then, from the Reformed point of view, he “received special revelation.” The power of God revealed to Joseph Smith the specific way to translate the gold plates.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, it is just a matter of pragmatics that we are disagreeing on. But as I have said, Joseph Smith was a seer, which is more than just a prophet or a revelator. Through the use of the interpreters (the special spectacles) spoken of in the Book of Mormon, he was able to translate the plates of gold from the unknown language on the plates into English. Only a seer can do this.

(continued in next post)
 
40.png
Calvin:
Remember we posit the idea of “special revelation” only to distinguish it from “general revelation.” Rational thought about nature (general revelation) can tell us there is a God and we should try to be nice to each other. Reason alone, however, cannot tell us about Jesus Christ. To learn about Christ we need “special (specific) revelation” contained in the Bible, transmitted by Church teachings or found in a direct communication from God (a vision). Mormons would add that we also need the message contained in the BOM and transmitted by the LDS president and apostles.
Click to expand...
I just have trouble calling something a revelation when it is already written on paper or gold plates, or whatever. If by “special revelation” you mean that the events of the Book of Mormon was revealed through translation of the gold plates to the world, then I guess I would have to agree. Whether or not you believe the Book of Mormon can be proven, do you believe that the Nephites, the Lamanites, and the Jaredites were not known to the world in the 1800s until the Book of Mormon came forth? What I mean is that no other book existed that spoke of these groups of people from the Book of Mormon besides the Book of Mormon.

I believe that the message found in the Book of Mormon helps enlighten our minds even further than the enlightenment we get from just the Bible alone. I am not sure how the LDS presidents and apostles have any effect on the Book of Mormon, besides their strange beliefs, which are not found in that book, leading people away from the Book of Mormon.
40.png
Calvin:
Reformed theologians would say that the contents of the BOM and the teachings of the LDS president and apostles (since they are considered to be prophets, yes?) are all “special revelation.”

-C
Click to expand...
If that’s what you want to call it, go ahead.

(continued in next post)
 
40.png
Calvin:
P.S. In a general sense I would affirm that the Bible was translated by the power of God. I would not affirm that any particular translation has been inspired. First off, in contrast to the BOM, there are literally thousands of translations of the Bible and I can just look at that thread about the new one recently endorsed by the Anglican ABC (“have a regular partner”) to know that they are not all good translations. I believe that the Bible contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that God would not want that Gospel to be lost. So, in a sense, the power of God has guided the translators around the world throughout history. The Eastern Orthodox teach that the LXX was an inspired translation but I don’t know if they think other translations were done by the power of God. I don’t know what Catholics think on this either.
Click to expand...
I might question whether any version of the Bible was translated by the power of God. Of course, the one I used is the Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, because I believe that it is the closest to the original writings. I don’t expect you to share my view on that.

I can’t believe any of the Bible versions that have been published in the last hundred years were translated by the power of God. Those versions are too New Age.
 
ROI

I have never seen anyone serriously argue that Joseph Smith was not arrested on charges of treason.

-D
 
40.png
boppysbud:
Rod what you are saying is called the Nestorian heresy, which posits that Jesus was divided into two persons with two separate natures, human and divine. Nestorians taught that Mary was the mother of Jesus the human, but not Jesus the God.

Jesus is one, with two natures, he cannot be divided, this is called the hypostatic union. Mary is tthe Mother of the whole Jesus, so she is called the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that Jesus was divided. I was talking about God. When God came to earth in the flesh, He was the Son. God in the spirit is the Father. Jesus is God in the flesh.

Mary is the mother of God in the flesh, because for nine months, she held God within her womb. This does not mean that God was not also in heaven at the same time, because with God, time does not exist. He can be everywhere, because time does not restrain Him from doing so.

You can say that I believe in a heresy. But perhaps, those who declared certain beliefs to be heresies were actually the heretics.
 
40.png
darcee:
ROI

I have never seen anyone serriously argue that Joseph Smith was not arrested on charges of treason.

-D
Click to expand...
I have never heard of anyone before accusing Joseph Smith of treason. What treason?
 
Lord, ROI

It was what he was arrested for. His little army even had a couple pieces of artillary.

-D
 
40.png
darcee:
Lord, ROI

It was what he was arrested for. His little army even had a couple pieces of artillary.

-D
Click to expand...
Treason against who? At the time, it was legal to form a local militia. The militia could bear arms; that is a right guaranteed by the U.S Constitution. Joseph Smith was not accused of treason. I don’t know where you are getting your false information from.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
LOL!! A Martyr doesn’t go down gun’s a-blazing!!! Jospeh Smith didn’t go quietly to the executioner, he died in a gun battle. And, he did not choose his death. If he went to Carthage intending to give his life for his faith then why did he have guns smuggled into his cell??? He went to Carthage intending to LIVE. If Joseph Smith was a martyr then so was David Koresh. The fact is neither of them are martyrs.

Martyr:
One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

Joseph Smith did not choose to die and he wasn’t arrested for being a Mormon, he was arrested for treason. He was never even asked to renounce his faith. So, let’s stop calling him a martyr.
Click to expand...
Many non-Mormon sources call him a martyr. The History Channel doesn’t even mention the tiny gun I believe he did have and he did shoot. But I said that Joseph Smith CHOOSE to die a martyrs death. It is well documented that he claimed that he was going “as a lamb to the slaughter.” He knew what was to be.

Charity, TOm
 
Yes, the book of mormon is fraud…The whole concept of the LDS church is based on J. Smith’s declared revelations. If you want to
get a good look on the mormon religion, get NO MAN KNOWS MY
HISTORY by Fawn Brody. Get the unchanged version…as the LDS
church has changed a lot of the book…Try E-bay. And the one church they really put down is the true church of Jesus Christ. The church he started…the Roman Catholic Church. They are misleading many, many people.
 
This thread has gotten too long and has veered off onto several different topics. For the sake of ease of navigation, it is being closed. Members are invited to begin new threads on the various themes discussed here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top