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:
It is not absurd or illogical. If you claimed to be the King of Siam or the Queen of England, and no one could prove otherwise, wouldn’t it be logical to believe that you are who you say you are?
Click to expand...
So you must be (as I am) a follower of His Excellency Joshua A. Norton, by Grace of God Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton)?

(Very good reading if anyone is bored.)

-C
 
Here is a little interesting tidbit

“It’s probably quite true that Joseph Smith had no real formal education. However, he was very well-read in the Bible, and there was a public library in Palmyra. His mother also tells, in her biography of her son, how he had a wonderful imagination, and he used to entertain the Smith family in the evenings by telling tales about the Indians, their customs, their great battles, etc. She says, on page 85 of the 1853 edition of Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith The Prophet…”:
“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.” "
 
Now, here’s a question for all you wonderful people who know more Biblical knowledge than I…

When were synagogues first used? I thought that they did not come to be until after the Babylonian distruction of Jerusalem.

Am I mistaken? If so, whack me over the head and tell me to go study history some more. 🙂

If I’m not mistaken, then I have a problem with a certain verse in the Book of Mormon. I don’t know why, but I just opened it to Alma 16. Verse 13 says: “And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.”

If Lehi and his family left before the distruction, how would he know the manner in which synagogues were constructed?

Actually, I’m having a hard time grasping that Lehi, a Judian living in Jerusalem would be writing anything in Egyptian (or anything else for that matter) instead of Hebrew.
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
In all fairness, RodofIron did give background information on what church he (or she?) belongs to last night.

He (generic) is a member of the Church of Christ, Restored, although I can find no information at all about this group.

Here’s the message #99:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=40157&postcount=99]

Thank you I had missed that 😉

-D
Click to expand...
 
40.png
darcee:
NO! It would not be logical to believe me.
I am in fact the Empress of Cascadia. It is my sovereign right that I receive $100 as a “free love offering and penance” from all those who fail address me “Most dignified and beloved, right honorable ladyship”. Do be so kind as to deposit these funds into my paypal account today.
Click to expand...
I am glad to make your acquaintance fair Empress of Cascadia, I mean, your “Most dignified and beloved, right honorable ladyship”. Whew! I am glad I remembered, because I don’t have $100 on me. I suppose that you go by the pseudonym “Darcee”, because you don’t like people bothering you for autographs all the time.

Anyway, I have no way right now to prove that you are anyone other than the Empress of Cascadia, so I will believe you are, unless it is proven that you are not. Thank you for confirming my point for me.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Like Santa Claus? (Miracle on 34th Street)

I have to agree with darcee. I find it illogical.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe that Santa Claus exists? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
 
It’s a very boring book. I don’t know if it’s a fraud or not.
 
:coffee: wow that is a big font you have there…

As to the rest… sometimes it is best to let the absurdity of an argument speak for itself.

-D
 
rod of iron:
Wow, Katholikos! You have just proven your complete and utter ignorance of the Book of Mormon. You have clearly shown that you do not have one inkling of what is in that book. The Book of Mormon in no way even suggests that Jesus is the spirit brother of the devil, nor will you find any support for “Jehovah being from the planet Kolob”, or man having the ability to become a God. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that Jesus the Christ is God come to Earth in the flesh to redeem us from our lost and fallen state.
Click to expand...
You believe the BOM, and have confidence that its “translator” is truthful, but you reject the “Prophet’s” other alleged scriptures? Hmmmm. Unfortunately, I’ve read the BOM several times.
The Book of Mormon teaches the same Christ as is in the Bible. If you don’t agree, show me where these false doctrines you spoke of can be found in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...
Begin on page 1 and end on page 522 of the 1948 edition.
What does it take for a book to be considered scriptural? An official stamp from the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
Yes! Only the Church founded by Christ has the power and authority to determine what is Scripture (the “inspired” Word of God) and what Scripture is (the list of writings that belong in the Bible).
The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 1:2 – “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Click to expand...
This refers to OT prophecy. But so what? Some authority had to determine which men “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” – the writings themselves can’t tell us. Inanimate objects have no voice. It requires the authority of the Church to determine what is Scripture.
If the Catholic church is needed to establish scripture, then it is being done by the interpretation of man.
Click to expand...
It was done by the Church, under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit, watched over by Jesus Christ Who promised to be with the Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20) and to send the Spirit to be with the Church to guide it FOREVER (Jn 14:16, 14:26, 14:16-7-15; Acts 1:1-2, chapter 15; et al.). The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16).
If I was so moved by the Holy Ghost to speak, would the result of my speech be prophetic? If prophetic, upon writing it down, would it not be scriptural?
Click to expand...
No
How can you determine what is scriptural and what is not? What test do you use? Do you rely on other people to tell you what passes as scripture? Or do you rely on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth? Do you depend on man to lead you, or the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
I depend upon the Church that wrote the NT and formed the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Only she knows for sure.

My own judgment and impulses are quite unreliable. I don’t depend on feelings. That’s a major fault with Mormonism and it’s “burning in the bosom” criteria. Maybe it’s the Spirit, and maybe it’s indigestion. And maybe it’s self-deception :). Every Protestant and Mormon “feels” that he is led by the Spirit to thousands of competing and conflicting answers to the very same questions.
How can you declare that my doctrines are false? You do not even know what I believe to be true. You can declare the beliefs of the Mormon church to be false, because you know what they believe. But you don’t know what I believe unless you ask me. Instead of assuming what I believe, why not ask me what I believe?
Click to expand...
Unless you believe what the Catholic Church teaches, your doctrines are false. The Church teaches what Jesus and the Apostles taught, period. Anything else is man-made.
I’m glad you asked. Yes, “and it came to pass” is very much a Hebraism. Even though English speakers are taught when they are writing to never begin a sentence with “and”, Hebrew writers do it all the time, because it is part of Hebrew syntax. Have you not noticed how many verses in the Bible begin with the word “and”? That is very Hebrew.
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t beginning sentences with “and.” The issue is the repetition ad nausem in the BOM of “and it came to pass.” If that phrase were removed, it would shorten the book considerably:yup:

Whaddaya think of Joseph Smith’s many wives? (See separate thread.) He was a very libidinous prophet!

Blessed be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar!

JMJ Jay
 
40.png
Katholikos:
You believe the BOM, and have confidence that its “translator” is truthful, but you reject the “Prophet’s” other alleged scriptures? Hmmmm. Unfortunately, I’ve read the BOM several times.
Click to expand...
By what you claimed was in the Book of Mormon, I know that you have not read that book. Your ignorant statements of what is found in that book gave you away.
40.png
Katholikos:
Begin on page 1 and end on page 522 of the 1948 edition.
Click to expand...
I don’t have this 1948 edtion you speak of. Is that an LDS version? Since you claim to be so knowledgeable about the Book of Mormon, show me specifically where those false doctrines can be found in the Book of Mormon, chapter and verse. Telling me to read the Book of Mormon won’t help you. I know what is in that book, and apparently you do not.
40.png
Katholikos:
Yes! Only the Church founded by Christ has the power and authority to determine what is Scripture (the “inspired” Word of God) and what Scripture is (the list of writings that belong in the Bible).
Click to expand...
First, the Catholic church does not resemble the church of the New Testament at all.

Second, the Bible never claims to be the “Word of God”. But the Bible does identify Jesus as being the “Word of God” – the Word made flesh.

Third, saying that the list of writings in the Bible are the only ones that constitute scriptures suggests that God had to wait until a church came along to decide what writings were good enough to be scripture and be bound together, before they could be called scripture. What you are saying is that the church decided what should be scripture, not God.
40.png
Katholikos:
This refers to OT prophecy. But so what? Some authority had to determine which men “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” – the writings themselves can’t tell us. Inanimate objects have no voice. It requires the authority of the Church to determine what is Scripture.
Click to expand...
Only in the Old Testament? Has the great unchangeable God changed? Does He no longer inspire men to prophesy now as He did in times past? If God spoke to you words of inspiration today, would you know it, or would you say, “No, no, God; you are too late; the Bible has already been canonized.” Do you believe you know everything that God wants you to know? Such an idea that you know all that God feels is important is arrogant at the least. Where do you stand? Is God pining away somewhere out of touch with us mere mortals? Is He dead? Is that why you don’t believe He speaks to us anymore?
40.png
Katholikos:
It was done by the Church, under the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit, watched over by Jesus Christ Who promised to be with the Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20) and to send the Spirit to be with the Church to guide it FOREVER (Jn 14:16, 14:26, 14:16-7-15; Acts 1:1-2, chapter 15; et al.). The Church speaks for Christ (Luke 10:16).
Click to expand...
In Matthew 28:20, I do not see that Catholic church mentioned at all. In fact, I see no mention of a church at all. I see where Jesus is speaking to His apostles. You may say that the apostles were part of the Catholic church, but I ask, “Why is there no office of apostle in the Catholic church today?” If the Catholic church is the same church that Christ started, the Catholic church would have to have apostles in it. But not an apostle can be found in the Catholic church, hence a different church.

In John 14:16 and 14:26, the promises again are being given to the apostles, not the Catholic church, because the Catholic church does not have any apostles.

How does Luke 10:16 speak of the Catholic church? Jesus was instructing the Seventy of their duties and how to respond. But the Catholic church does not have any Seventy either. The Seventy were seventy specially called Elders who Jesus chose. But the Catholic church does not have any Elders either. The Catholic church only seems to have three priesthood offices mentioned in the scripture, namely Deacons, Priests, and Bishops. With more than half the priesthood offices absent from the Catholic church, how could a person believe it is the same as the church that Christ built?
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:
It’s a very boring book. I don’t know if it’s a fraud or not.
Click to expand...
What’s boring about it? I find it to be fascinating and spiritually uplifting.
 
rod of iron:
In Matthew 28:20, I do not see that Catholic church mentioned at all. In fact, I see no mention of a church at all. I see where Jesus is speaking to His apostles. You may say that the apostles were part of the Catholic church, but I ask, “Why is there no office of apostle in the Catholic church today?” If the Catholic church is the same church that Christ started, the Catholic church would have to have apostles in it. But not an apostle can be found in the Catholic church, hence a different church.

In John 14:16 and 14:26, the promises again are being given to the apostles, not the Catholic church, because the Catholic church does not have any apostles.
Click to expand...
I always thought the Bishops were (effectively) Apostles?

Oh, nevermind, that is why the Pope sits on the Throne of Linus…

-C
 
rod of iron:
You don’t believe that Santa Claus exists? What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I have hurt you. Yes, rod of iron, there is a Santa Claus.

No one has proven to you that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent and no one will. Every argument has been met by a counter-argument. You have not shown the BOM to be legitimate and this should be possible.

The Bible history has been verified on occasion by archeological discovery. The Bible speaks of Sennacharib and a tablet is uncovered which speaks of Sennacharib. (I tried to spell check but my computer threatened to walk out of the room). The Bible’s accuracy was shown when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. These are the examples I can think of quickly. I am sure that you archeology buffs can think of more.

The point is that the BOM should have similar historical context and it does not… Where are other reformed Egyptian documents. Where are other golden scraps, fragments, etc. What has been discovered I the last two centuries to verify the BOM.

This is why when Mormons call the evidence offered is always just a burning in the bosom, which I do not get…….unless I just ate tacos.
 
Hello all,

I have been generally glad that Rod of Iron has been fielding BOM questions here, but I wanted to add a couple of things.

First, I have read the BOM cover to cover multiple times. Just as Catholics and Protestants recognize that a sola scriptura read on the scriptures can result in either Catholic or Protestant doctrine, a sola scriptura read on the BOM is completely in line with a sola scriptura read of the Bible. This means that there is almost nothing in the BOM that is not also in the Bible or vice versa. The majority of traditional Christian ideas are more clearly explained in the BOM (than in the Bible).

So when RoI says that those who claim the BOM teaches a different Christ have not read the book and pondered it for themselves he is most likely correct.

A few differences that immediately come to mind.
  • No Baptism of Infants. The BOM is clear on this. The Bible is not (clear).
  • I do not think there is near as much room for an Imputed Righteousness belief within the BOM than within the Bible. Also, Pelegian error is easier to be derived from the BOM, but when one uses both the BOM and the Bible, I believe one must embrace Infused Righteousness.
  • The BOM clarifies information about the fall. I believe that the BOM teaches the fallen nature of man very similarly to the Eastern Orthodox Church (rather than like Catholic and Protestants). The BOM is also clear that the fall of Adam and Eve was necessary.
So RoI is very correct in my opinion that the majority of the peculiar beliefs that those addressing him attack are not derived from a sola scriptura read of the BOM.

Second, something that I do not agree with RoI (and I want to bring up in this thread). I do not think that we should embrace the Empress of Cascadia. I do not think that we are in any way bound to believe that which we cannot prove to be untrue or unbelievable. I would instead suggest that RoI has shown that your “proof” of falsity is really not proof. And RoI has presented “evidences” of the authenticity of the BOM that have been dealt with almost none.

For me, I have seen the “problems” explained and muted universally. I have seldom seen the “evidences” so soundly addressed. The issue for me is that an authentic paradigm explains the “evidences” and is not toppled by the “problems.” A fraud paradigm has yet to convincingly explain the “evidences” by my BIASED assessment.

Now you may return to your regularly schedule programs.

Charity, TOm
 
No one’s answered my question about when synagogues were first used… :crying:

Sorry if the answer is obvious to everyone, but I’m coming from a non- JudeoChristian backgorund.
 
I realize that everyone is debating whether or not there is evidence which disproves the existence of the peoples described in the Book of Mormon to prove it is fradulent.

The problem with arguing that something never existed because no evidence has been found, is that it can always be countered by appending it with the word “yet”.

The Book of Mormon has problems supporting it in so many quarters that it, it is hard to find a starting place. The character of its author has always been in question - from variant stories of the origin of Smith’s visions, false prophecies, anecdotes of Smith using seer stones, his adoption of polygamy after he was caught having an affair, etc. But since people like to make up stories about people they don’t like, the veracity of any anecdotal information is always in question. In addition, the faithful will always have tendancy to disbelieve it, and it seems that the number of stories that appear only have the effect of bolstering your original view.

This is a long thread. Has anyone yet mentioned the Books of Moses and Abraham? As I understand it, these works by Joseph Smith were translated from actual egyptian artifacts purchased from a travelling exhibit at a time when Egyptology was in its infancy, and no scholarly translation was possible. Some of the original sources have survived and, under modern scholarship, been found to disprove Smith’s interpretations. Even with this existing proof, there are still those who argue that there are other undiscovered texts which support its veracity.

What is acceptable as definitive proof?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top