LDS and ancient record...

[ParkerD]

2000 years of the brightest theologians, Saints and mystics have not embraced the Book of Mormon as part of the ascended truth. Who are the Saints and Mystics of the Mormon Church? Where is the deep time tradition and body of truth that members are asked to ascend to?

TSKrobacz,

A follower of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, is asked to trust in Him, and to trust that where they are “asked to ascend to” will be guided by Him, not by tradition. I love that about the Savior’s teachings–He is there, guiding, for those who seek Him, and it is a distinctly personal relationship, which the Book of Mormon and the Bible both affirm.

There are no “saints and mystics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Christ the Lord is the living example to be sought and to be followed after.

 

[tskrobacz]

TSKrobacz,

A follower of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, is asked to trust in Him, and to trust that where they are “asked to ascend to” will be guided by Him, not by tradition. I love that about the Savior’s teachings–He is there, guiding, for those who seek Him, and it is a distinctly personal relationship, which the Book of Mormon and the Bible both affirm.

There are no “saints and mystics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Christ the Lord is the living example to be sought and to be followed after.

Thanks for your response. It is clear why so many go astray. Ignoring the tradition (in our case the documents of the second vatican council), the ascended truth of Saints and Mystics, is not a rational approach.

As Pope John Paul says in his encyclical Fides et Ratio:

“the human being—the one who seeks the truth—is also the one who lives by belief.
In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests an important tension. On the one hand, the knowledge acquired through belief can seem an imperfect form of knowledge, to be perfected gradually through personal accumulation of evidence; on the other hand, belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.”

I do not understand why any faith tradition chooses to ignore the “knowledge acquired” by the great tradition.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

1. Of course Martin Harris would say he didn’t see the plates with his “natural eyes”. When first asked if he would be one of the Three Witnesses, he was not spiritually ready to receive the visit of the angel or to see the golden plates. This is because he was unfamiliar that one’s heart must be spiritually attuned, including be free from personal sins through having repented of any sin and through having no ulterior motives, no thought of “what the world will think” or “what my wife will think”. So he needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer.

When he did change his heart, he was then in a spiritually prepared frame of mind and heart, and would of course not say he had seen the plates with his “natural eyes” because the natural eyes have to do with “fallen man”, “carnal man”, the kind of “wisdom of men” that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2.

The single best part about this whole thing is that it starts with the words “of course.” You know, like it’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain that Martin Harris saw the golden plates with burble-burble-burble, fallen man, natural eyes yadda-yadda-yadda 1st Corinthians wisdom of men something-something-something intercessory prayer.

Of course indeed, Parker. Of course indeed.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

In the second place, for one to “dictate to scribes from imagination” the kind of complex story with dozens of distinctly different personalities including distinct word usage patterns and word use, even in translation, and with the kinds of foreshadowing, story-within-a-story, flashbacks, and all that with complete literary tightness, would take more than any literary genius the world has seen.

I’m glad you brought up your “literary” background, because the more I learn about LDS theology, the more my own background tells me that it’s all a house of cards. You see, I get paid to make up stories. Literally, that’s my job. I sit around in a room all day with some other people, crack wise and say, “How about this…” and I pitch a story.

So, having made up thousands of stories in my life (most of them bad, btw, so I know what I’m talking about when it comes to bad storytelling), I’ve often encountered exactly the problem that Joseph Smith encountered with the BoM - and that is, it’s really really hard to mesh an extension of a previous story. Sure, you can pitch interesting stuff (a “pre-mortal” existence! A council of spirits! Competing plans for progression!). That’s easy. What’s hard is making it “fit” with the preexisting story. And that’s where the BoM’s flaws are so obvious to anyone who cares to truly look.

For instance, and I know I’ve brought this up before, the BoM flatly contradicts the first sentence of the Bible. “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” In order to justify LDS theology, you have to add the following parentheses: “In the beginning (not really, though, everything had already been around for a long time before this) (one of many) God(s) created (actually, he didn’t create anything, he just organized preexisting matter) the Heavens and the Earth.”

And that’s just the first sentence. The first sentence!

Again, anyone can pitch crazy stuff. It’s not hard. What hard is pitching interesting stuff that still fits withing the framework of the previous story. And LDS theology clearly does not fit within the framework of traditional Christian theology. Not at all. That’s why LDS prophets have to keep changing things, or re-defining words, or hedging their bets by saying things like, “I’m not sure if we believe that.” It all just a story. And not even a very good one, at that.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m glad you brought up your “literary” background, because the more I learn about LDS theology, the more my own background tells me that it’s all a house of cards. You see, I get paid to make up stories. Literally, that’s my job. I sit around in a room all day with some other people, crack wise and say, “How about this…” and I pitch a story.

So, having made up thousands of stories in my life (most of them bad, btw, so I know what I’m talking about when it comes to bad storytelling), I’ve often encountered exactly the problem that Joseph Smith encountered with the BoM - and that is, it’s really really hard to mesh an extension of a previous story. Sure, you can pitch interesting stuff (a “pre-mortal” existence! A council of spirits! Competing plans for progression!). That’s easy. What’s hard is making it “fit” with the preexisting story. And that’s where the BoM’s flaws are so obvious to anyone who cares to truly look.

For instance, and I know I’ve brought this up before, the BoM flatly contradicts the first sentence of the Bible. “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” In order to justify LDS theology, you have to add the following parentheses: “In the beginning (not really, though, everything had already been around for a long time before this) (one of many) God(s) created (actually, he didn’t create anything, he just organized preexisting matter) the Heavens and the Earth.”

And that’s just the first sentence. The first sentence!

Again, anyone can pitch crazy stuff. It’s not hard. What hard is pitching interesting stuff that still fits withing the framework of the previous story. And LDS theology clearly does not fit within the framework of traditional Christian theology. Not at all. That’s why LDS prophets have to keep changing things, or re-defining words, or hedging their bets by saying things like, “I’m not sure if we believe that.” It all just a story. And not even a very good one, at that.

Cradle to Grave,

The Book of Mormon does not re-present Genesis 1, nor does it talk about the pre-mortal life except in a couple of verses where it is implied.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t “contradict” anything in the Bible.

 

[blueadept]

Cradle to Grave,

The Book of Mormon does not re-present Genesis 1, nor does it talk about the pre-mortal life except in a couple of verses where it is implied.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t “contradict” anything in the Bible.

That’s my conclusion as well, but that doesn’t make it necessarily historical either. Most LDS have the spiritual confirmation of the historocity of the book while non-LDS have the opposite spiritual confirmation. An amazing phenomena IMO.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

If you wish, you can present the Biblical passages that say Peter was the “chief steward” and that the other apostles didn’t have a role as having authority because they were apostles.

I never claimed that the Bible actually called Peter the ‘chief steward’ because I don’t believe it ever did, directly. But, when you read the many instances where Jesus referred to the the master of the house leaving his trusted servant in charge of his household while he went away to tend to other things, it’s quite clear that that person held full authority over the master’s house, during that time. When Jesus made all of those references, He was giving clear examples of what it meant when the master left his servant in charge of his house. The House of God is the Church that Jesus established, and He is the Master of that House.

Also, if you know anything at all about the structure of household servants, their authority, and their individual responsibilities during that particular period in time when Jesus walked the earth, then it’s impossible to think that Jesus would not be giving His full authority to Peter when He established His Church. Also, that those keys and full authority to bind and loose would remain with Peter and his successors, until the time when Jesus would return to the earth, which will only happen once, at the final Judgement of mankind. The keys are the significant symbol of that authority. The other Apostles certainly had their own authority as Bishops, as well as other responsibilities, but they were limited by, and subject to, the Authority given to Peter as being the holder of the keys and their leader, here on earth.

The Bible is clear that there is no such position as the “chief steward” in the New Testament church established by Jesus Christ. Jesus is the foundation, the rock of salvation, and the cornerstone with no need for Peter to have had the role you think he had.

I responded to your first statement, above. There has never been any argument that Jesus is the cornerstone that was ‘rejected’ (by the Jewish leaders), or that He is the Foundation of all Truth and the Rock of Salvation. But, you conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus was well aware that He would not remain on earth to lead His people, forever. Knowing that, He realized that He had to appoint someone to do that for Him, until His return. That’s what He was referring to in Matthew 16-20. He chose Peter because he was the only one that humbly recognized and proclaimed that Jesus was the “Son of the living God”. Jesus knew that the only One that could have revealed that to him, was His Father, so it was a confirmation to Him that Peter was the only one that was worthy to hold the keys to His Kingdom while He was away.

Readers can read Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Isaiah, Joel, Daniel, and Malachi and will find out that the house of Israel still has an important role in the last days, and that it isn’t only the Jews–who were the house of Judah. There is a role of Ephraim described in an important way and it is being fulfilled, unbeknownst to the majority of people on earth and even unbeknownst to the majority of the Jews.

Peace to you and all.

I never said that the house of Israel was insignificant, nor that it did not play an important role in the past. The entire Old Testament is an important part of the foundation of Christianity, but the basics of Christianity itself are found in the New Testament, in a much greater capacity. Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecies made in the OT. Anything that is revealed concerning the last days, refer to Him and His role in it. All of those things are His responsibility and Christians should not concern themselves about it. We should only be focusing on following Jesus in what He taught us to do.

The modern ‘house of Israel’ and their beliefs at this point in time, are completely irrelevant to what Jesus says and teaches us to do. We are to follow Him, first and foremost, and leave the fate of the modern Jews up to God. He’s the only one that can turn their hearts back to Him in the end. Nothing that we do or say in that regard is going to make much of a difference. I really don’t think they are our concern, nor do I believe their actions have any real significance to Christians until they decide to follow Jesus Christ.

This is another reason that Mormons are not seen as being Christian. Their beliefs are based more on the Old Testament and the beliefs of Judaism than they are on Jesus Christ (contrary to their church’s name). Joseph Smith tried to blend the two systems together in one religion, with the dominant part of it being Judaism, whereby, the focus of Christianity has always been on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The two systems are very different and cannot really be seen as being the same, at all. Many of the beliefs may be similar in their foundation, but the focus of each of them is totally different in many ways. Mainly, it’s because the Old Testament laws were a preparation for the coming of the salvation promised in the Messiah, and were only a foreshadowing of the truth, while Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Truth that has already come to offer us His Salvation as the true Messiah, so each one has a totally different approach to the worship of God.

 

[Telstar]

Z,

That’s an interesting question, since Moses and the children of Israel kept records including of the names of the people, and since if I’ve understood correctly (having not researched first-hand but having heard about it and knowing first-hand about records kept of christenings and marriages in the Church of England, for which I am very grateful) there are records kept about the baptisms of infant children of Catholics. I suppose you could ask those who first started those actions “what, God can’t remember this stuff?”–to each their own.

It’s interesting to note that the Jews of that very early period, when most people were illiterate, passed down most of those ‘records’ of their lineage through the use of oral methods, including songs and dissertations that were required to be memorized, word for word, by the faithful.

Modern church’s (particularly Catholic church’s) keep records of baptisms, confirmations, marriages, deaths and other things, since some Sacraments require that previous ones be done, first, and it’s completely unnecessary to repeat any of them. It often becomes necessary to look into those records if there is ever a question of those previous Sacraments being received by someone, especially when they move to other parishes, or areas of the country, or the world and want to be married (or whatever), in their new Parish.

Those records are not kept as a proof of any of it, to God. I’m pretty sure He knows who’s been Baptized or whatever, without having to rely on any man to tell Him that.

 

[Telstar]

Cradle to Grave,

The Book of Mormon does not re-present Genesis 1, nor does it talk about the pre-mortal life except in a couple of verses where it is implied.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t “contradict” anything in the Bible.

OK… so it was the Pearl of Great Price, D&C or some other writing by Joseph Smith, or other LDS leaders, that rewrote Genesis. It’s still Mormon ‘scripture’ that is followed faithfully by LDS that has completely rewritten the concepts of creation and almost every other basic belief of Judaism and Christianity. The point is that all of those sources are against almost everything that the Bible teaches.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The single best part about this whole thing is that it starts with the words “of course.” You know, like it’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain that Martin Harris saw the golden plates with burble-burble-burble, fallen man, natural eyes yadda-yadda-yadda 1st Corinthians wisdom of men something-something-something intercessory prayer.

Of course indeed, Parker. Of course indeed.

And of course Parker would be intimately knowledgeable about Mr. Harris’ spiritual state, knowing that he was “not spiritually ready” and that he had sins he had not repented of, and was concerned about “what the world would think”. Parker knows that Mr. Harris “needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer”.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Campeador,

I don’t read every post, but having now read that statement, here is your answer about it:

1. Of course Martin Harris would say he didn’t see the plates with his “natural eyes”. When first asked if he would be one of the Three Witnesses, he was not spiritually ready to receive the visit of the angel or to see the golden plates. This is because he was unfamiliar that one’s heart must be spiritually attuned, including be free from personal sins through having repented of any sin and through having no ulterior motives, no thought of “what the world will think” or “what my wife will think”. So he needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer.

When he did change his heart, he was then in a spiritually prepared frame of mind and heart, and would of course not say he had seen the plates with his “natural eyes” because the natural eyes have to do with “fallen man”, “carnal man”, the kind of “wisdom of men” that Paul wrote about in 1 Corinthians 2.

1. Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery both had a period of not being faithful and participating members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but neither ever denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and both came back into activity in the church and were active members of it when they passed away. David Whitmer left church activity but never denied his “witness” that the Book of Mormon was true. Anything any of them wrote about “spiritual eyes” would have to do with 1 Corinthians 2 in being able to be understood as to what the words “spiritual eyes” mean.

But they never said they saw them the way one see’s an object before one’s eyes you know light rays passing through the pupil, being focused on the retina by the lens and so on. So they never said they saw the plates with their eyeballs.

 

[ParkerD]

And of course Parker would be intimately knowledgeable about Mr. Harris’ spiritual state, knowing that he was “not spiritually ready” and that he had sins he had not repented of, and was concerned about “what the world would think”. Parker knows that Mr. Harris “needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer”.

Z,

I was familiar with the following account, and with the fact that Martin Harris had shared the “lost manuscript” with his wife and thus lost that manuscript.

The following account is from “History of the Church” Volume 1:

Revelation to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, at Fayette, Seneca County, New York, June, 1829, given previous to their viewing the plates containing the Book of Mormon.3

1. Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea. 
 2. And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old. 
 3. And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God; 
 4. And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work. 
 5. And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith. 
 6. And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true. 
 7. Wherefore you have received the same power, and the same faith, and the same gift like unto him; 
 8. And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day. 
 9. And, I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it unto you, that I might bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men. Amen.

Seeking the Fulfilment of the Promise.

 Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation–that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer’s house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises.

The Order of Prayer.

 According to previous arrangement, I commenced prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before.

The Visitation of the Angel—Viewing the Plates.

 Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly withdrew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings thereon distinctly. He then addressed himself to David Whitmer, and said, “David, blessed is the Lord, and he that keeps His commandments;” when, immediately afterwards, we heard a voice from out of the bright light above us, saying, “These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.”

Martin Harris also Views the Plates.

 I now left David and Oliver, and went in pursuit of Martin Harris, whom I found at a considerable distance, fervently engaged in prayer. He soon told me, however, that he had not yet prevailed with the Lord, and earnestly requested me to join him in prayer, that he also might realize the same blessings which we had just received. We accordingly joined in prayer, and ultimately obtained our desires, for before we had yet finished, the same vision was opened to our view, at least it was again opened to me, and I once more beheld and heard the same things; whilst at the same moment, Martin Harris cried out, apparently in an ecstasy of joy, “ ’Tis enough; ’tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld;”B and jumping up, he shouted, “Hosanna,” blessing God, and otherwise rejoiced exceedingly.4

Statement of the Witnesses.

 Having thus, through the mercy of God, obtained these glorious manifestations, it now remained for these three individuals to fulfil the commandment which they had received, viz., to bear record of these things; in order to accomplish which, they drew up and subscribed5 the following document:6

The Testimony of Three Witnesses.

 (available in the preface area of the Book of Mormon)

OLIVER COWDERY,
DAVID WHITMER,
MARTIN HARRIS.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Z,

I was familiar with the following account, and with the fact that Martin Harris had shared the “lost manuscript” with his wife and thus lost that manuscript.

The following account is from “History of the Church” Volume 1:

 (available in the preface area of the Book of Mormon)

OLIVER COWDERY,
DAVID WHITMER,
MARTIN HARRIS.

Well I can see from History of the Church that the physical plates were never seen by the witnesses and that JS had no intention of showing the actual physical plates to any of the witnesses. This is whole thing is so much like The Emperors New Clothes.

 

[TexanKnight]

Dear TexanKnight,

I don’t personally know Joseph Smith. I do know I wouldn’t trust the legal system in 1826 in upstate New York,

Really? Ok. You have made an allegation that there was something wrong with the legal system in upstate New York in 1826. Is it because Joseph was convicted? I call for references that show the legal system in upstate NY in 1826 was bad. Thank you in advance for your references.

nor would I trust anyone who would base a remark about a person’s whole life on a misdemeanor that person had as a twenty-one year old–so, to each their own.

Actually, I didn’t. My comments based on his life of cons, running from the law, bank scandals, violating free speech, etc. Most people do not fall for people like that, but to each his own.

As far as the Book of Mormon, an accusation about Joseph Smith such as the one you presented shows all the more since I’ve read the Book of Mormon many times and am familiar with its authenticity and complexity as a text, that no country bumpkin could write such a book. Again, to each their own.

I never claimed he wrote the book. I have claimed he lifted the material from other people and sources AND had very educated people helping him like Rigdon and Cowdery. But, you have claimed its authenticity. Please point me on a map to Zerehemla. Thank you in advance for showing me where that is.

Be Blessed

 

[TexanKnight]

Campeador,

I don’t read every post, but having now read that statement, here is your answer about it:

1. Of course Martin Harris would say he didn’t see the plates with his “natural eyes”.

Yes. if they did not exist, of course he would say he did not see them with his natural eyes.

When first asked if he would be one of the Three Witnesses, he was not spiritually ready to receive the visit of the angel or to see the golden plates. This is because he was unfamiliar that one’s heart must be spiritually attuned, including be free from personal sins through having repented of any sin and through having no ulterior motives, no thought of “what the world will think” or “what my wife will think”. So he needed a change of heart, through mighty prayer.

CFR that he thought or considered that.

1. Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery both had a period of not being faithful and participating members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but neither ever denied the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and both came back into activity in the church and were active members of it when they passed away. David Whitmer left church activity but never denied his “witness” that the Book of Mormon was true. Anything any of them wrote about “spiritual eyes” would have to do with 1 Corinthians 2 in being able to be understood as to what the words “spiritual eyes” mean.

Yes, all of them were involved with what turned out to be one of the greatest frauds of all time. There is absolutely no way any of them could ever be truthful about it. Had they ever slipped, they would have faced prosecution and law suits from non LDS and scorn and lawsuits from LDS members.

1. I don’t personally know Mr. Burnett, nor have any knowledge of his literary background nor how many times he had read the Book of Mormon or the Bible.

So? Does that make him wrong or bad?

My knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true and is from God is based on having read it and read the Bible many times,

Ok. I have read the Book of Mormon many times. I know it is not true. Does the number of times one has a read a book make it more or less true?

 

[ParkerD]

OK… so it was the Pearl of Great Price, D&C or some other writing by Joseph Smith, or other LDS leaders, that rewrote Genesis. It’s still Mormon ‘scripture’ that is followed faithfully by LDS that has completely rewritten the concepts of creation and almost every other basic belief of Judaism and Christianity. The point is that all of those sources are against almost everything that the Bible teaches.

Telstar,

No–quite the contrary. Every teaching of any of those works can be found in the Bible either directly or by consideration of how Biblical teachings and histories fit together, such as learning from the life history of Abraham and learning from the symbolism of the Bread of life in the historical account of the children of Israel, the Bread of life being Jesus Christ.

If you wish, you can cite the teachings of Jesus that directly show that Peter was to have been the “chief steward” of the church established by Jesus Christ.

 

[TexanKnight]

Telstar,

No–quite the contrary. Every teaching of any of those works can be found in the Bible either directly or by consideration of how Biblical teachings and histories fit together, such as learning from the life history of Abraham and learning from the symbolism of the Bread of life in the historical account of the children of Israel, the Bread of life being Jesus Christ.

If you wish, you can cite the teachings of Jesus that directly show that Peter was to have been the “chief steward” of the church established by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 16:18

and then there is the indirect evidence wherein Peter is mentioned in the NT more than every other apostle put together…

 

[campeador]

Telstar,

No–quite the contrary. Every teaching of any of those works can be found in the Bible either directly or by consideration of how Biblical teachings and histories fit together, such as learning from the life history of Abraham and learning from the symbolism of the Bread of life in the historical account of the children of Israel, the Bread of life being Jesus Christ.

C’mon Parker. JS plagiarized the Bible but changed the words a bit to fit his theology. It really didn’t take long for me to find the most absurd example:

KJV Genesis 1—1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
LDS Abraham 4—1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

KJV Genesis 1—2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
LDS Abraham 4—2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.

KJV—3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
LDS—3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

KJV—4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
LDS—4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

KJV—5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
LDS—5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

I could literally go on and on…

 

[Jerusha]

I Maccabees is an excellent read for those wanting to find parallels with the BoM. Even has a section about writing on sheets of bronze. Too bad Mormons don’t read it.

 

[ParkerD]

I Maccabees is an excellent read for those wanting to find parallels with the BoM. Even has a section about writing on sheets of bronze. Too bad Mormons don’t read it.

Hi, Jerusha,

I hope you are doing well along with your family. Merry Christmas season to you and them.