Is the Mormon God/Heavenly Father described in the Bible?

[theidler]

I find it funny that after more than 150 years and a host of detractors the best direct evidence against the 11 witnesses is Martin Harris stating that he saw the plates with “spiritual eyes”. Here are a few other statements from Martin Harris:

And just before his death:

Nice…you believe the testimony of a drunk. And you ignored the “tinkling” element too, as well as all the other objections to the plates and the Book. Janderich, look, for pete’s sake, please open your eyes here man. Honestly.

“The only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. They were retrieved by the angel at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Smith and left his movement. Smith then called them ‘liars.’”
source here

 

[PaulDupre]

So if I understand you correctly, Jesus, the Son laid down His life and took it up again because He saw His Father do the same thing? So, then, God, Jesus’ Father, was, also, a Jesus, in that he laid down His life at some point on another earth?? So, then, was every other god, before the God of this earth, also, a Jesus of some sort who laid down his life and took it up again??? I am so confused.

It is not official LDS doctrine, but many Mormons draw the conclusion that Heavenly Father was the Christ of another world.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[soren1]

I find it funny that after more than 150 years and a host of detractors the best direct evidence against the 11 witnesses is Martin Harris stating that he saw the plates with “spiritual eyes”. Here are a few other statements from Martin Harris:

Why do you suppose this is the best evidence I have? I only said it was the most obvious. In fact, I don’t even think Harris’s claim that he saw the plates with spiritual eyes is itself evidence “against” the witnesses! Why would it be? Since it could not refute the possibility that the witnesses really did see the plates with spiritual eyes, it does not prove that their testimony is false. Rather it bears directly only on the *interpretation *of their testimony. Strictly speaking, it is only evidence that the witnesses did not physically see the plates. By itself, that fact could be quite neutral, neither for nor against the witnesses. Yet it matters here because the point is not usually acknowledged by Mormons who cite the witnesses as evidence. For instance, when you replied to rdsheirer that “on at least two separate occasions others saw the plates” you would be misrepresenting history if you meant to create the impression that they physically saw them, since that idea was disclaimed by the only witness who ever explicitly commented on whether the vision of the plates was literal or not. On that point, I do not think I actually arguing “against” the witnesses at all; rather, I am defending Martin Harris’s honesty and giving him credit for his convictions. I think you should have the same respect for him.

Furthermore, you have not responded to the positive evidence I have presented that shows from Emma’s own account that the plates, or whatever Smith had, was made of some other metal than gold. This is actually a better form of evidence because the impossibility of gold tinkling means that Emma’s account was either the result of a deception by a non-gold mock up, or else it is colored by her imagination of what the plates might be like, since no tinkling gold could be contained in a true account.

Before you leap into a response, let me make plain to you a few points about my own philosophy of evidence in apologetics, so you do not misconstrue the presuppositions in the above paragraphs. I do not approach Joseph Smith from a skeptical standpoint in the sense that I believe Mormons have to prove their case to justify him as a prophet. In fact, I think the opposite. I take as a general principle that in debates about religion the burden of proof is always carried by the objector. That means I must prove my case; you need not. It is sufficient for you merely to answer my objections, and you win. If I were defending Catholicism against an attack from someone else, same would hold. I would not need to prove everything, but I would need to respond to all objections. Hence, you need not prove Smith was a prophet, but I need to disprove it.

On these assumptions, the point about Harris does not disprove Mormonism; it only neutralizes one positive argument on your side. The argument from Emma’s testimony, however, because it is based on positive, contrary evidence, is something you need to explain, because if Emma really heard that tinkling, it is positive evidence of a hoax, as are the glaring discrepancies between the Urim and Thummim accounts.

 

[SteveVH]

How do Mormons differ from Evangelical Christians in their concept of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

Is there a difference? Is it significant … or not?

Do you not find it a lttle strange that Janderich has ignored your requests to comment on Joesph Smith sleeping around with the wives of his friends?

As to the difference in Mormon beliefs concerning the nature of God, you are getting a very watered down version. In fact, it is nothing less than very strong polytheism; an eternal regression of gods. It is not even close to Christian monotheism. Once you enter into this discussion be prepared to fall down the rabbit hole. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[theidler]

Do you not find it a lttle strange that Janderich has ignored your requests to comment on Joesph Smith sleeping around with the wives of his friends?

As to the difference in Mormon beliefs concerning the nature of God, you are getting a very watered down version. In fact, it is nothing less than very strong polytheism; an eternal regression of gods. It is not even close to Christian monotheism. Once you enter into this discussion be prepared to fall down the rabbit hole. It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

The problem is that both Janderich and ParkerD really don’t directly address these tough issues and objections. If these are bogus claims, say so and show us the contrary evidence. Point out that our objections are based on hearsay or are conspiratorial non-sense. Anything, but enough with the backflips and the dodging and the ignoring the obvious here, let’s get down to the nitty gritty.

 

[SteveVH]

The problem is that both Janderich and ParkerD really don’t directly address these tough issues and objections. If these are bogus claims, say so and show us the contrary evidence. Point out that our objections are based on hearsay or are conspiratorial non-sense. Anything, but enough with the backflips and the dodging and the ignoring the obvious here, let’s get down to the nitty gritty.

Its quite simple really. As to the polygamy (adultery) issue, that was what God wanted at that time but does not want at this time. As to the nature of God issue, we just can’t understand because we are not enlightened and we believe in scriptures that have been corrupted by the Cathoic Church. What’s so hard about that?

 

[Janderich]

Furthermore, you have not responded to the positive evidence I have presented that shows from Emma’s own account that the plates, or whatever Smith had, was made of some other metal than gold. This is actually a better form of evidence because the impossibility of gold tinkling means that Emma’s account was either the result of a deception by a non-gold mock up, or else it is colored by her imagination of what the plates might be like, since no tinkling gold could be contained in a true account.

Before you leap into a response, let me make plain to you a few points about my own philosophy of evidence in apologetics, so you do not misconstrue the presuppositions in the above paragraphs. I do not approach Joseph Smith from a skeptical standpoint in the sense that I believe Mormons have to prove their case to justify him as a prophet. In fact, I think the opposite. I take as a general principle that in debates about religion the burden of proof is always carried by the objector. That means I must prove my case; you need not. It is sufficient for you merely to answer my objections, and you win. If I were defending Catholicism against an attack from someone else, same would hold. I would not need to prove everything, but I would need to respond to all objections. Hence, you need not prove Smith was a prophet, but I need to disprove it.

On these assumptions, the point about Harris does not disprove Mormonism; it only neutralizes one positive argument on your side. The argument from Emma’s testimony, however, because it is based on positive, contrary evidence, is something you need to explain, because if Emma really heard that tinkling, it is positive evidence of a hoax, as are the glaring discrepancies between the Urim and Thummim accounts.

Soren,
I appreciate your more rational approach free from personal attacks and humor at my expense. Such things are no doubt easy to do on this site in which a group of people are ready to join in the “fun”. C.S. Lewis once said, “For unfortunately, we enjoy thinking about other people’s faults…” (and I might add even percieved faults).

Anyway, what of Emma Smith’s statement? She of course is not one of the 11 witnesses to the BofM, but let’s discuss it. I believe you are referring to the following:

The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26, no. 19 (1 October 1879): 289–90; Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Volume I (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), 525

You may have more knowledge on metallurgy then do I. I truly have not investigated if gold sheets given certain thicknesses can “rustle”. However, let me give you what we have. The three witnesses do not specifically mention the composition of the plates but the eight witnesses say, “Be it known… : That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.” Also from the Book of Mormon itself we have, “Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone.” (Mormon 8:5) From the above, plus a few other statements it seems clear that the Book of Mormon had the appearance of gold but it is not obvious if the plates were of pure gold. In fact, it is more likely that they were an alloy of gold. Such an alloy may account for the apparent discrepancy.

 

[ParkerD]

Please dont take offense at my question here … I am sincerely interested in understanding Mormon history and doctrine … as I previously mentioned … my daughter dated a young man who is a Mormon.
Until recently I was unaware of the custom of polyandry practiced by Joseph Smith.
Can you give insight into the doctrinal reasoning behind Joseph Smith taking the wives of men that were associated with them. I know that poligamy and polyandry are not practiced or sanctioned today. Is it common knowledge,within the Church today, that Joseph Smith freely practiced polyandry?
How do you/ they feel about that part of Joseph Smith’s persona.

Here is my question in more detail as related to LDS Church history and research.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8778952&postcount=15

1voice,

As the article you linked in your other post pointed out, there is only conjecture and innuendo by people who had definite reasons to discredit Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, for thinking that Joseph Smith had a physical marriage relationship with married women. There are no DNA-linked descendants of any of the women who were listed as the sealed wives of Joseph Smith with him as the father–instead, their descendants are linked by DNA to their traditional marriage.

Plural marriage, and being “sealed” in eternal marriage, were given as “Abrahamic tests”, meaning that the person’s faith and their motives as to their willingness to “sacrifice all things” were being tested, in a way that doesn’t make sense to us but was their test nonetheless.

We in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have different “Abrahamic tests” in today’s world than those of the mid-1800’s. For one person, it might be just finding out about plural marriages. For another, it might be finding out about Blacks and the priesthood. For another, it might be a health issue in their own life or in the life of a close loved one that is difficult to accept from a “loving” God. For another, it might be that they see a natural calamity and wonder how God could allow such tragedies.

Such tests of faith weed some people out, just as there were seeds in the parable of the sower that didn’t bring forth the potential harvest, and just as Jesus taught with the words “thoroughly purged his floor”. Thoroughly purged really does mean thoroughly.

I suggest you could re-read the article you linked, also.

 

[Janderich]

Soren,
I appreciate your more rational approach free from personal attacks and humor at my expense. Such things are no doubt easy to do on this site in which a group of people are ready to join in the “fun”. C.S. Lewis once said, “For unfortunately, we enjoy thinking about other people’s faults…” (and I might add even percieved faults).

Anyway, what of Emma Smith’s statement? She of course is not one of the 11 witnesses to the BofM, but let’s discuss it. I believe you are referring to the following:

The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” Joseph Smith III, “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” Saints’ Herald 26, no. 19 (1 October 1879): 289–90; Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, Volume I (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), 525

Wow, if disagreement has ceased for a short time then I say read the Book of Mormon with an open mind, and add to your knowledge of the Bible, for in it are found the words of God.

…and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel; And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible… Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? …And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. (2 Ne 29: 3,7-9)

 

[theidler]

…and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel; And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible… Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? …And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. (2 Ne 29: 3,7-9)

Janderich, there was no such thing as “the Bible” at the time 2 Nephi was written - the page marks the date as "Between 559 - 545 BC). The term Bible also comes from the Greek, τὰ βιβλία - where did these Nephite fellows learn Greek? What was the original language that you would say 2 Nephi was written in? I’m confused.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Janderich, there was no such thing as “the Bible” at the time 2 Nephi was written - the page marks the date as "Between 559 - 545 BC). The term Bible also comes from the Greek, τὰ βιβλία - where did these Nephite fellows learn Greek? What was the original language that you would say 2 Nephi was written in? I’m confused.

And what bible did the gentiles have between 559 - 545 BC?

 

[NewSeeker]

1voice,

As the article you linked in your other post pointed out, there is only conjecture and innuendo by people who had definite reasons to discredit Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, for thinking that Joseph Smith had a physical marriage relationship with married women. There are no DNA-linked descendants of any of the women who were listed as the sealed wives of Joseph Smith with him as the father–instead, their descendants are linked by DNA to their traditional marriage.

Plural marriage, and being “sealed” in eternal marriage, were given as “Abrahamic tests”, meaning that the person’s faith and their motives as to their willingness to “sacrifice all things” were being tested, in a way that doesn’t make sense to us but was their test nonetheless.

We in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have different “Abrahamic tests” in today’s world than those of the mid-1800’s. For one person, it might be just finding out about plural marriages. For another, it might be finding out about Blacks and the priesthood. For another, it might be a health issue in their own life or in the life of a close loved one that is difficult to accept from a “loving” God. For another, it might be that they see a natural calamity and wonder how God could allow such tragedies.

Such tests of faith weed some people out, just as there were seeds in the parable of the sower that didn’t bring forth the potential harvest, and just as Jesus taught with the words “thoroughly purged his floor”. Thoroughly purged really does mean thoroughly.

I suggest you could re-read the article you linked, also.

Many of these men passed the test and were not weeded out. As a reward, Joseph had himself sealed to their wives eternally, anyway, making them Joseph’s eternal wives. Some of these men he even sent on missions afterward. Nice.

 

[Janderich]

Janderich, there was no such thing as “the Bible” at the time 2 Nephi was written - the page marks the date as "Between 559 - 545 BC). The term Bible also comes from the Greek, τὰ βιβλία - where did these Nephite fellows learn Greek? What was the original language that you would say 2 Nephi was written in? I’m confused.

Nephi and his family had some of the books now contained in the Bible. They had the five books of Moses and a record of the Jews down to the reign of king Zedekiah (1 Ne 5:11-13). Nephi later has a vision of the future and sees a book carried by the Gentiles which an angel explains is similar to the book which Nephi has (1 Ne 13:20-23). He goes on to explain the history of the book.This book is almost certainly the Bible. The word “Bible” is not used in this chapter. However, it is clear that Nephi now understands what the Bible is. So, we don’t know the term Nephi used to indicate the word “Bible” but whatever the word(s) were the modern translation could rightly be given as “Bible”.

 

[theidler]

Nephi and his family had some of the books now contained in the Bible. They had the five books of Moses and a record of the Jews down to the reign of king Zedekiah (1 Ne 5:11-13). Nephi later has a vision of the future and sees a book carried by the Gentiles which an angel explains is similar to the book which Nephi has (1 Ne 13:20-23). He goes on to explain the history of the book.This book is almost certainly the Bible. The word “Bible” is not used in this chapter. However, it is clear that Nephi now understands what the Bible is. So, we don’t know the term Nephi used to indicate the word “Bible” but whatever the word(s) were the modern translation could rightly be given as “Bible”.

Fair enough, but that sounds more like an open conjecture…what was the language that 2 Nephi was written in? What word was used for “the book”?

 

[RebeccaJ]

No Jewish community is without a Torah. Yet, none have been found that predate the arrival of Europeans in the Americas.

 

[pablope]

Nephi and his family had some of the books now contained in the Bible. They had the five books of Moses and a record of the Jews down to the reign of king Zedekiah (1 Ne 5:11-13). Nephi later has a vision of the future and sees a book carried by the Gentiles which an angel explains is similar to the book which Nephi has (1 Ne 13:20-23).

So…how did the angel explain it? That Nephi was able to understand it is the Bible?

[/QUOTE]

 

[TexanKnight]

Nephi and his family had some of the books now contained in the Bible. They had the five books of Moses and a record of the Jews down to the reign of king Zedekiah (1 Ne 5:11-13). Nephi later has a vision of the future and sees a book carried by the Gentiles which an angel explains is similar to the book which Nephi has (1 Ne 13:20-23). He goes on to explain the history of the book.This book is almost certainly the Bible. The word “Bible” is not used in this chapter. However, it is clear that Nephi now understands what the Bible is. So, we don’t know the term Nephi used to indicate the word “Bible” but whatever the word(s) were the modern translation could rightly be given as “Bible”.

The word Bible was not even around back when Nephi allegedly walked the Earth. What we have is Joseph writing a book and inserting self-fullfilling prophesies that helped him get a group a people who would build him houses and give him their wives.

I have so much admiration for Mormons and their lifestyles, I just pray that they will see the truth that is so plainly seen.

 

[Janderich]

Let me first frame the context of this response. I have already discussed some of the eye witness accounts of the golden plates. We are now talking about a statement made within the book itself.

Regarding the Nephites having the words of Moses etc., I am not claiming that there is additional evidence beyond the written word in the Book of Mormon.

pablope:

More inconsistency here…don’t you see it? “History” indicates something of the past…or dealing with the past. So how could someone explain the history of the Bible if the Bible will not be compiled till several centuries later? Should not the explanation be a prophecy…of the future bible, not a history, which meant it has happened.

Unless, the writer or translator made a big mistake in writing this account of event in Nephi?
Or was it a fraud to begin with?
Or in this case, we have the case of an inept angel, not knowing what he was telling Nephi that the angel is relating a future event, not a past event?

The term “history” is my word for what the angel explained. I was attempting to describe in a few words why Nephi would generally understand what we today refer to as the Bible. However, you are correct in saying that what I referred to as “history” is to Nephi in fact future.

pablope:

So…how did the angel explain it? That Nephi was able to understand it is the Bible?

Without having to delve in too deep, here is the explanation in brief…
Nephi sees Gentiles cross the ocean to the Americas (my word). With them they have a book (see 1 Ne 13: 20)
The angel then explains what is in the book. Among other items he explains…

• It is a record of the Jew’s.
• It contains the covenants of the Lord to Israel.
• It contains prophecy of the holy prophets.
• It is a record similar to the plates Nephi has (Books of Moses, etc).

 

[theidler]

Janderich, what was the language that 2 Nephi was written in? That might help us more clearly define what “the book” was. What does the original passage say?

 

[Janderich]

Janderich, what was the language that 2 Nephi was written in? That might help us more clearly define what “the book” was. What does the original passage say?

Theidler, We do not know the exact term Nephi used for “Bible”. However, we do know that the Nephite language was unique. Here is the comment from Moroni, the last writer in the BofM, “But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.” (Mormon 9:34). As Moroni indicates, no other people knew the Nephite’s language. That is why God needed to prepare a way to translate the book.