Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[the_geezer]

TOmNossor:

Not only does the current DNA evidence not prove that modern Indians did not genetically descend from Lehi, mathematical models have shown that 20% of the DNA from a population typically vanishes during 600 years of generations

Unfortunately, this is not true. Genetic characteristics can be traced all the way back thousands of years. A common genetic “marker”, for example, has been researched from all continents back to an single African female. The “mathematical models” to which you refer may be similar to global weather simulators that predict dire warming going forward, but fail to track backward from the overheated future to the present we have today. Those “models” may be faulty.

Regards.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Calvin,

Then I assert that you have not read the Book of Mormon. If you declare that you have read that book, please give examples from that book that contrast what was taught in the first century church.
I have read most of the Book of Mormon, but not all of it. For the record, however, I did pray for the “burning in my bosom” just to be sure.

I find it ironic that you queried me on how I could trust the Bible when the earliest fragments were from the second century and yet there are no original language manuscripts for the BOM at all! Christian and non-Christian scholars can examine the fragments of the Bible in the original languages, but no one can examine the “original” BOM on gold plates. So I chuckle when you write about “Hebrew idiom” in the BOM because the BOM is a book whose earliest versions only exist in English. If you want to establish Hebrew “syntax, style and poetic device” you have to look at documents written in Hebrew not English. I could mimic Hebrew idiom in English by hacking from the King James translation of Hebrew into English in the Old Testament which, incidentally, is what many people accuse Smith of doing.

How is the Mormon doctrine different from first century Christianity?

In addition to what Apologia100 pointed out:

The Apostles Creed is the oldest “official” creed. There is evidence of development of the wording over time, but even the earliest versions of it contain the phrase “Jesus Christ his only Son.” This precludes the Mormon doctrines on God having multiple spirit children or Lucifer being Jesus’ brother. In fairness, the Mormons describe a unique role for Jesus but the Creed and Church are quite clear that Jesus was the only Son.

According to St. John, Jesus’ last words on the cross were, “it is finished.” (Jn 19:30) After His Ascension to Heaven, Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father (Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2). Since His work is finished and He is seated in Heaven, this seems to preclude a visit to the Americas as described in the BOM.

Mosiah 18:17 says that the church was founded between 147-145 BC. Any Catholic here will be happy to tell you about the Rock of Peter (Mt. 16:18) around AD 33.

Alma 7:10 says Jesus was born at Jerusalem. Matthew 2 makes a big point that he was born in Bethlehem.

2 Nephi 31:13 says people were baptized and given the Holy Spirit in 559 BC (according to LDS website). The Church has taught that this did not happen until Pentecost (Acts 2).

Alma 46 (according to LDS website written in 72-73 BC) refers to “Christians” three or four times. Acts says people were first called Christians at Antioch (11:26).

Doctrine and Covenants 93:23 teaches that man pre-existed with God. The Church denies this doctrine.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 teaches that there are multiple Gods. The Church denies this.

I could go on but you get the drift. Bottom line: if Mormonism teaches the same things as the Church, why do we need Mormon revelation?

As a Mormon you should proudly proclaim the differences because they prove that we are lost without your doctrines.

-C

 

[AmandaPS]

the_geezer:

Unfortunately, this is not true. Genetic characteristics can be traced all the way back thousands of years. A common genetic “marker”, for example, has been researched from all continents back to an single African female. The “mathematical models” to which you refer may be similar to global weather simulators that predict dire warming going forward, but fail to track backward from the overheated future to the present we have today. Those “models” may be faulty.

Regards.

I don’t know much (nothing at all really) about mathematical markers, but my readings are saying that 9% the Lemba still carry Jewish genetic markers (specifically the Cohen Modal Halotype) more commonly found in Ashkenazic and Sephardic priests and very rarely found in non-Jewish populations.

*He found a particular set of genetic mutations at these nine sites that was strongly associated with the priestly caste, not so common among lay Jews, and very rare in non-Jewish populations. Unlike forensic DNA markers, which are chosen to be almost wholly specific to individuals, this cohen-associated genetic signature cannot be used to say who is or who is not a priest. But it is highly Diagnostic of whether a population has Jewish ancestry, Goldstein said.

He finds that 45 percent of Ashkenazi priests and 56 percent of Sephardic priests have the cohen genetic signature, while in Jewish populations in general the frequency is 3 to 5 percent. *
haruth.com/JewsLembaNY.html

 

[Sanosuke]

rod of iron:
I never said that I had a better way. Humans learn through trial and error. It takes new information to come forth in order for history to change. But history is never written in stone. This is why I said before that the Book of Mormon cannot be patently false, because all it takes is new information to come forth that proves the Book of Mormon to be true. You can choose not to believe the Book of Mormon for any reason you like, but your lack of belief in what the book states does not prove it to be false.

Oh, but of course. However, the fact that history is not written in stone does not make it “trial and error”. Like any body of knowledge, history changes according to the facts presented. The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it has no facts to back it up. I have read many crackpot stories in my lifetime, many of which have nothing to support it. At the current moment, the Book of Mormon has as much supporting it as those theories. If nothing supports it, I can only call it as it looks. I am not going to take my salvation that lightly to put my faith in something which cannot prove its claims.

Why must I prove something that I believe is historically factual? For me, the accounts of people recorded in the Book of Mormon does not matter much to me, because I do not have anyway of knowing for sure whether they existed or not without more evidence coming forth. But the history is secondary to what is written in the Book of Mormon about Jesus Christ, His doctrine, and His gospel. The history will not save me nor condemn me.

If the Book of Mormon claims that there were Christians in America soon after Christ died, and the BOM is supposed to be inerrant, and nothing supports what the Book says, why should I trust its moral teachings? If it cannot get the hard objective facts right, why should I believe its theology, either? I don’t know about you, but a book that appears over 1800 years after Jesus’ death seems pretty suspicious. The only way to test the books authenticity is to check its facts out. So far, out of the numerous claims that the BOM makes: elephants, wheat, grapes, lambs, steel, giant battles, Semitic people, and other things which could at least be documented, have not been found to exist before Europe brought them over.

I know that the Book of Mormon holds the truth of salvation because upon reading it, the Holy Spirit has convicted my heart that what I have read is true. The Holy Spirit leads us to all truth, if we will listen to it. Sure, if we can prove that the Book of Mormon is lying and that it makes historical claims that cannot and never will be substantiated, then of course we should reject it. But no one yet has accomplished such a feat of disproving it. How does one examine historical claims without evidence? As I have already said, the lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist or did not happen. You seem to be one who will not believe unless you are given a sign. This evidence would be a sign to you.

First, if the Holy Spirit leads people to all truth, why is it that Protestants all trust the Holy Spirit to guide them to a correct interpretation of their Scriptures (apparently by what “feels” right) and wind up with thousands of different interpretations? Secondly, Catholicism has beautiful continuity from its earliest years until now, as can be read in hundreds upon hundreds of documents which exist from its early years.

Asking for a miracle is far different than asking to see something which requires no faith. If I see a rock, it is highly likely that I am looking at a rock. If I see evidence of the Book of Mormon’s credibility, I will see credibility in the Book of Mormon. Until now, however, I will not put my faith in something which makes claims on the temporal world which it cannot support. If the Book of Mormon says I should see steel, and I don’t see steel (especially since Mormons have been devoting so much time looking for it for such a long time), something’s wrong.

 

[Sanosuke]

(continued)

rod of iron:
I bet you put your faith in much more than you think. You put faith in your car that it will start when you turn the key in the ignition, or you would never do it. You have faith that you will wake up tomorrow morning, or you would never go to sleep. There are many other things I am sure you put your faith in also.

That’s faith? I thought the combustion engine was technology, which is based on widely tested and approved experiments through the last 80 years. It takes little faith to assume that what comes up also comes down, or that combustion will take place. I have also learned to trust my eyes: when I observe steel, I expect to see steel. I have faith in physics, I have faith in God, and I have faith that 2 + 2 will always equal 4. I don’t need faith for any of those things: since my eyes haven’t lied to me recently, I will put more faith in them than I will in some book that claims to hold the truth about an event that happened 1800 years before its release date. If Jesus’ tomb were still full after the resurrection, I would seriously doubt that Jesus rose from the dead. You place too little weight on physical evidence.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? If you haven’t I would not expect you to believe in it, because you will not know what is contained within it. It is filled with faith and hope of the saving power of Jesus Christ, but you will never know unless you read the book.

I find the Bible to be filled with faith and hope too, thank you. If the BOM lies about little things, I will never trust it in the big things. At the moment, all signs point directly towards errancy. If your faith is based on a warm and fuzzy feeling you get in your gut, you probably need to rethink your faith. Catholicism is overflowing with Christ’s goodness. It satisfies me mentally and spiritually.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Apologia100:

No problem, here we go.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (RSV).

Nice misquote of a scripture, Apologia. Psalm 51:5 says no such thing. Rather, that verse states: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

This does not reveal anything about the baby being conceived, but rather, about the one conceiving. The mother did not conceive a sinful baby. Instead, the mother conceived in sin. This is referring to the sexual act.

Also, your quote from Moroni mentions nothing about “sinful nature” as you claim. The phrase “sinful nature” cannot be found in the Book of Mormon. Children are born pure and sinless. That is why Jesus said that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God. If children are born sinners, then you must concede that Jesus is saying that we must become sinners to enter His kingdom and that being a sinner is requisite for entering that kingdom. But this is not so.

I see no problem in your first point.

Apologia100:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command (“of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it”) in order to keep the former (“be fruitful and multiply”), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.

Did Adam and Eve have children while in the Garden of Eden? Do you have evidence proving this to be true? If not, how do you know that Adam’s fall was not necessary for Adam and Eve to have children? But the necessity of the fall does not negate the fact that eating from the forbidden tree was in rebellion to God. Nor does it negate that after the fruit was eaten and they were removed from the garden that the “power of sin and death was unleashed in the human heart”.

You claim there is no logic to God telling Adam and Eve to not partake of the forbidden tree so that they could be tempted to partake of it and then fullfill the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. I say that there is great logic in that. It is reverse psychology. God knew that by forbidding them to eat from that tree, the temptation would be there for them to rebel. This is similar to putting a plate of fudge brownies on the table, telling your children to not touch them before supper, then leaving the room. You would never do this unless you expected them to disobey you and eat the brownies.

God was not surprised when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. The plan of salvation was already developed from the foundation of the world. God knew what would happen and He had already prepared for it. God knew that He would be coming to Earth in the flesh to redeem us from the fall long before the fall happened. God was testing us, and as He knew would happen, mankind failed the test. This provided the need for Jesus to die on the cross for us and buy us with the price of His blood. If Adam had not fallen, there would have been no need for Jesus to come to Earth, and we could never be His. God made it possible for our salvation by placing a tree in the garden and forbidding Adam and Eve from touching it or eating from it. Satan played right into the hands of God by tempting Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit. For God not to know that putting that forbidden tree in the garden and forbidding them to eat from it would be too big of a temptation would mean that God is in denial. God knew what He was doing.

I don’t find a problem in your second point either.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

I don’t find a problem in your second point either.

Your challenge was to show how the Mormon doctrine contrasted with what was taught in the first century Church. The exegesis Apologia100 posted was how the early Church interpreted those passages. The fact that you are now providing a different exegesis shows that Mormons interpret doctrine different than the early Church.

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

I have read most of the Book of Mormon, but not all of it. For the record, however, I did pray for the “burning in my bosom” just to be sure.

Burning in the bosom? Where is that a requirement for determining truth? I have never had this so-called “burning in the bosom”, unless I want to count the times I have had heartburn. I have read the Book of Mormon and the Lord opened my eyes to what it says. No burning. Just relying on the Lord God.

Calvin:

I find it ironic that you queried me on how I could trust the Bible when the earliest fragments were from the second century and yet there are no original language manuscripts for the BOM at all! Christian and non-Christian scholars can examine the fragments of the Bible in the original languages, but no one can examine the “original” BOM on gold plates. So I chuckle when you write about “Hebrew idiom” in the BOM because the BOM is a book whose earliest versions only exist in English. If you want to establish Hebrew “syntax, style and poetic device” you have to look at documents written in Hebrew not English. I could mimic Hebrew idiom in English by hacking from the King James translation of Hebrew into English in the Old Testament which, incidentally, is what many people accuse Smith of doing.

How does a lack of manuscripts for the Book of Mormon prove that the Bible has not been changed sometime in the first century?

Since the Book of Mormon was written upon plates of gold, I feel that God showed great wisdom in removing them from the Earth. They would have surely been destroyed during the gold rush of 1848-49 when everyone traveled to California to strike it rich. In fact, the plates would have probably been melted down long before that for just the gold itself. Everyone was gold hungry. Of course, the Bible had no danger of being destroyed for that matter, because none of its manuscripts were written on gold plates.

Do you have any knowledge of Hebrew poetry? Do you know anything of how Hebrew sentences are formed? Do you know anything about Hebraisms, parallellisms, and chiasms that are part of the Hebrew language? Just mimicking the Old Testament will not teach you any of this stuff.

Calvin:

How is the Mormon doctrine different from first century Christianity?

Who said anything about Mormon doctrine? I want to know how the Book of Mormon teaches differently from first century Christianity, not how Mormon doctrine does. Maybe you do not see the difference, but there is a large difference.

 

[Sanosuke]

My fellow Catholics, please remind me when the next new religion comes out claiming that it has salvation for my soul. I’ll remember to believe every claim in makes, even if they are unsupportable claims.

 

[rod_of_iron]

3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches “And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, RSV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).

Your quotes from the Bible does not contrast the Book of Mormon as you have hoped. You have quoted that there are no “distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class” after they have been converted to Christ. You claim that black skin is not a curse from God, but I ask you, when God curses someone, does it affect that person physically? What is the result of a curse from God? When we are redeemed by Jesus, we are washed as white as snow. What color were we before?

Does God curse anyone, or is the Bible lying? When Cain was given a mark from God for killing Abel, what was this mark? The Bible says that other men would be able to see that mark. What better mark than to darken his skin?

Apologia100:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that, “it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23; see also Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).

Ah yes, an ambiguous statement. I am sure that Mormons use this verse to say that we must do every thing possible first, and then Jesus will make up the difference. But in context, this is not what the verse states at all. The context around that verse is speaking of the Law of Moses, and how even though those people believed in Christ and His saving power, they were still under the comandment to keep the Law of Moses until Christ came to Earth and accomplished what He did on the cross. In that verse, “all we can do” is referring to keeping the Mosaic Law. They acknowledge that the Mosaic Law will not save them, only by Christ would they be saved. They knew that His grace was the only thing that had the saving power. But they were still obliged to keep the Law of Moses at that time. They further knew that once the law was fulfilled in Christ, the law would be done away with. They could do everything they could possibly do to save themselves, and they would be no closer to being saved than if they had done nothing. The truth they knew was that the grace of God saves, not the works of men. Study the context around that verse and see if what I have said is true.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

I want to know how the Book of Mormon teaches differently from first century Christianity, not how Mormon doctrine does. Maybe you do not see the difference, but there is a large difference.

I **do **see the difference. There is a large difference.

We agree brother!

-C

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Does God curse anyone, or is the Bible lying? When Cain was given a mark from God for killing Abel, what was this mark? The Bible says that other men would be able to see that mark. What better mark than to darken his skin?

Maybe Adam and Eve were black and the “mark” was to whiten his skin? Sort of like Liquid Paper? or White Out?

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

5. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christ’s crucifixion “darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days.” In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).

What do you know about earthquakes and volcanos? Do you know that when a volcano erupts, it spews cinder and ash in the air, and if the eruption is large enough, the sun will be blotted out for a time. When the earth splits apart, some of the same effects can occur, if there is magma under the ground.

The Book of Mormon speaks of the earth quaking all over that region. The city of Moronihah was buried when the earth rose up and turned the city into a mountain. The city of Zarahemla caught on fire and burned. The city of Moroni sunk into the sea. The storms and tempests lasted three hours, which would agree with the time of darkness in Jerusalem. But the effects of the chaos on the American continent would still block the sun for three more days. Such a number of large earthquakes that would bury whole cities in the earth or in the sea would not be measurable on a Ricther scale. The degree of it would be too great. The Book of Mormon also tell us that fire of any kind could not be kindled during those three days, which is the same as what happens during a volcanic eruption. But seismology and vulcanology was completely unknown to people in the 1830s, so how did Joseph Smith know so perfectly what happens during an earthquake or volcano?

Further, the time on darkness in Jerusalem was from noon to 3 pm. The people of the Book of Mormon are at least 8 hours behind in time. This put the darkness from 4am to 7am Book of Mormon time. During that time, it is already dark. Would the Nephites know that the Earth was dark at that time? No.

Therefore, I see no problem with the three days of darkness. The three days of darkness is one of the things that confirms the Book of Mormon to me.

Apologia100:

1. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

There is no priesthood through the line of Judah either, but Jesus was called a great high priest. How did that happen? No descendents of the tribe of Levi went with Lehi and his family to the Americas. How would they have had any priesthood to minister unto them if God had not provided a priesthood for them, even though they were not of the tribe of Levi? With no Levites available, are we to believe that God would just give up on them and forget about them? God is God. He can call anyone He wants to His priesthood. God acts out of necessity.

Apologia100:

These are but a scant few of the numerous problems that the Book of Mormon has in comparison to Sacred Scripture. Therefore, it should be considered spurious in inspiration, and for the most part, a downright fraud.

I did not find any of your problems that I could not easily refute.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

I **do **see the difference. There is a large difference.

We agree brother!

-C

You agree that there is a big difference between what the Book of Mormon teaches and what Mormon doctrine teaches? That’s great. Now, perhaps, you can show me how the teachings of the Book of Mormon differs from the teachings of the first century Christians, wihtout mixing Mormon doctrine in your answer.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

You agree that there is a big difference between what the Book of Mormon teaches and what Mormon doctrine teaches? That’s great. Now, perhaps, you can show me how the teachings of the Book of Mormon differs from the teachings of the first century Christians, wihtout mixing Mormon doctrine in your answer.

I mis-read your statement. I thought you were saying there was a big difference between BOM and First Century Christianity.

Go back to my last long post. There are several clear statements where the BOM contradicts the New Testament, a first century Christian book par excellance.

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Okay, Calvin. I will comment on what you have presented.

Calvin:

The Apostles Creed is the oldest “official” creed. There is evidence of development of the wording over time, but even the earliest versions of it contain the phrase “Jesus Christ his only Son.” This precludes the Mormon doctrines on God having multiple spirit children or Lucifer being Jesus’ brother. In fairness, the Mormons describe a unique role for Jesus but the Creed and Church are quite clear that Jesus was the only Son.

I am not debating Mormon doctrine with you, as I have stated before. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon can you find any mention of God having any spirit children or that Lucifer is the brother of Jesus. The Book of Mormon makes clear that Jesus is God in the flesh. So, I do not see where these examples help your cause against the Book of Mormon. We can become children of God through Jesus Christ, but we will never be His begotten children. God only has One Begotten Son – Jesus the Christ.

Calvin:

According to St. John, Jesus’ last words on the cross were, “it is finished.” (Jn 19:30) After His Ascension to Heaven, Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father (Heb 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2). Since His work is finished and He is seated in Heaven, this seems to preclude a visit to the Americas as described in the BOM.

Yes, it is finished. But what was finished? What He finished was the requirements for bringing salvation to the world. He had finished what He had come for. But He had not finished teaching His doctrine and His gospel to all of the House of Israel. He said clearly that He was sent to the House of Israel. But not all the descendents of the sons of Jacob were in Jerusalem at the time Jesus lived there and died there.

When the Bible says that Jesus sits at the right hand of God, this is referring to His position of power, not His present location. Jesus is not sitting in one place twiddling His thumbs all this time. If Jesus sat next to the Father after He had ascended into heaven and has sat there ever since that time, how did He appear to Saul on the road to Damascus? Saul surely recognized the being that appeared to him as Jesus. Jesus’ appearance to Saul does not preclude the visit to the Americas, so it would appear that Jesus was still on the move at the time He visited Saul and blinded him, unless you want to reject Saul testimony that Jesus appeared to him.

Calvin:

Mosiah 18:17 says that the church was founded between 147-145 BC. Any Catholic here will be happy to tell you about the Rock of Peter (Mt. 16:18) around AD 33.

Peter a rock? He is the shakiest and most unpredictable man mentioned in the Bible. He would always open his mouth at the wrong time. He lashed out and cut the ear off a soldier. He lied three times when asked if he knew Jesus of Nazareth. A few verses after Jesus spoke of the Rock that the church would be built on, He called Peter – Satan. If Peter is this rock and Peter is called Satan by Jesus a few verses later, it would seem that the Catholic church is built on the rock of Satan. Is that really what you want to claim? If any man represents a sandy foundation, it is clearly Peter. Of all the apostles to pick as the first leader of the Catholic church, it picks Peter. I don’t understand it.

Calvin:

Alma 7:10 says Jesus was born at Jerusalem. Matthew 2 makes a big point that he was born in Bethlehem.

In Alma, it speaks of Jerusalem as being a land. This is the way the Nephites referred to areas of land. If you look in the Book of Mormon, you will find the “land of Jerusalem” mentioned 41 times. This is the way the Nephites referred to the area at and around the city of Jerusalem. The word “Bethlehem” is not mentioned even once in the Book of Mormon. Mentioning it just in Alma 7:10 would be completely out of context with the rest of the Book of Mormon. Even though Bethlehem existed at the time, the people who received that prophecy has been born and raised in Mesoamerica. They had never seen the Middle East. All they could rely on was what they were told by their fathers before them. If God would have said that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, the Nephites wouldn’t have a clue what God was talking about. God chose to reveal the birth of Jesus in the terminology they were accustomed to. Their forefathers had spoken of the Land of Jerusalem being the place where they had come from, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem would not have made any sense to them.

Don’t you think that if Joseph Smith would have been such a smart fellow to plagiarize the Bible as you claim, he would have been clever enough to put the word ‘Bethlehem’ in Alma 7:10? Think about it.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

2 Nephi 31:13 says people were baptized and given the Holy Spirit in 559 BC (according to LDS website). The Church has taught that this did not happen until Pentecost (Acts 2).

Perhaps, it didn’t happen until Pentecost in the Middle East, but the Bible does not necessarily speak of what happened in the Americas. The writer of Acts would not know what the early Americans were doing, let alone know that they existed at all. After all, there were no computers, televisions, radios, or telephones at that time. If the Book of Mormon said that the people in the Middle East received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, then you would have more credence to your statement. But you cannot say that something did not happen in one place just because it did not happen at the same time in another place half-way around the world.

Calvin:

Alma 46 (according to LDS website written in 72-73 BC) refers to “Christians” three or four times. Acts says people were first called Christians at Antioch (11:26).

Acts 11:26 is speaking only of the disciples in the Middle East. That is why it says, “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Alma 46 does not refer to those called Christians as being the disciples, nor is it referring to those disciples mentioned in the Middle East. If Alma 46 said that the disciples mentioned in the Bible were first called Christians earlier than what Acts 11 states, then you would have a case. But again, the Book of Mormon is speaking of an entirely different group of people. What the disciples of Antioch did has no bearing on the people mentioned in the Alma 46.

Calvin:

Doctrine and Covenants 93:23 teaches that man pre-existed with God. The Church denies this doctrine.

This verse is not found in the Book of Mormon, so it is irrelevant to our discussion.

Calvin:

Doctrine and Covenants 121:32 teaches that there are multiple Gods. The Church denies this.

This verse is also not in the Book of Mormon, so it too is irrelevant to our discussion.

Calvin:

I could go on but you get the drift. Bottom line: if Mormonism teaches the same things as the Church, why do we need Mormon revelation?

I have never said nor implied that Mormonism teaches the same things as the Church. I am only speaking of the Book of Mormon. How many times must I reiterate this?

Calvin:

As a Mormon you should proudly proclaim the differences because they prove that we are lost without your doctrines.

I have already told you that I am not a Mormon. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Utah. As long as you continue to misrepresent me, I do not see how we can have a meaningful discussion. I am not Mormon, period.

 

[Sanosuke]

rod of iron:
I have already told you that I am not a Mormon. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Utah. As long as you continue to misrepresent me, I do not see how we can have a meaningful discussion. I am not Mormon, period.

We cannot stop misrepresenting you until you actually tell us what your beliefs are. The little you are divulging about yourself is akin to me only telling you that I am a Christian. In today’s world, there are so many versions of Christianity that one has no clue what that person believes based soley on that description of themself.

It seems as though you are debating a bunch of Catholics. Our beliefs are clearly laid on the table for you: pick up a Catechism and you can find out everything you want to know about us. Now that that is settled, please do the same for us: lay out your beliefs (that are relevant to this discussion, of course).

rod of iron:
Peter a rock? He is the shakiest and most unpredictable man mentioned in the Bible. He would always open his mouth at the wrong time. He lashed out and cut the ear off a soldier. He lied three times when asked if he knew Jesus of Nazareth. A few verses after Jesus spoke of the Rock that the church would be built on, He called Peter – Satan. If Peter is this rock and Peter is called Satan by Jesus a few verses later, it would seem that the Catholic church is built on the rock of Satan. Is that really what you want to claim? If any man represents a sandy foundation, it is clearly Peter. Of all the apostles to pick as the first leader of the Catholic church, it picks Peter. I don’t understand it.

Show me that verse that says Jesus only calls perfect people to do His work. Jesus also left Judas Iscariot to be the treasurer of the Apostles’ funds even though John says that he was stealing from them. Every one of the Apostles, except John, ran away in the Garden. And yet, Jesus still chose them and sent His Spirit to them. Despite their flaws, they spread the Faith, and it is now the largest religion in the world.

I am not meaning to be rude, but that flawed person named Peter has done more to spread the Faith than you or I ever have. I dare you to look in the Bible and find one of God’s prophets or believers who didn’t have some flaw.

Happy hunting! ^^

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Since the Book of Mormon was written upon plates of gold, I feel that God showed great wisdom in removing them from the Earth. They would have surely been destroyed during the gold rush of 1848-49 when everyone traveled to California to strike it rich. In fact, the plates would have probably been melted down long before that for just the gold itself. Everyone was gold hungry. Of course, the Bible had no danger of being destroyed for that matter, because none of its manuscripts were written on gold plates.

I’ve been dying to respond to this paragraph but I want to be charitable…

“I can resist all things except temptation.”

---

This is the silliest thing I have read in a week or more. The “great wisdom” of God is shown because the BOM would have “surely” been destroyed during the Gold Rush?!?!?

The prospectors were people not gold-eating termites. The Gold Rush inspired folks to look for gold in the ground not in the cupboards. It wasn’t as if folks went from house to house devouring gold objects!!! People had gold things before and after the Gold Rush. If the Mormon church actually had the BOM during the Gold Rush, it would be no less safe than my great-great grandmother’s silverware. Besides it is a holy book from God, wouldn’t the Mormons have protected it?!

Maybe you are thinking of the Great Leap Forward in China not the Gold Rush. During the Great Leap, Mao came up with the idea of having back-yard steel mills. All of the peasants brought anything they had with metal in it and threw it into the mills to be smelted into “steel.”

God took the BOM back to heaven to save it from the Gold Rush. That, truly, is the best thing I have heard in a while.

-C

 

[darcee]

The burning in the bosom thing.

Ok… for a totally new question.
If the BoM is true because God sends you a “burning in the bosom” then why doesn’t EVERYONE get that feeling. I never did. I thought it must be me until I started reading online and learning that A LOT OF PEOPLE don’t.

If that is really the criteria then why not everyone?

Oh and BTW the whole Bountiful thing… is anyone contending th Joseph Smith didn’t know about oasis? Anyone could write a vague geographical description and given an area as vast and diverse as the Middle East find a place that miraculously matches it. Not proof. Just the same old “But Joe was too stupid and uneducated to KNOW that rice is grown in China” argument.

-D