Making a fair and thorough literary evaluation of Book of Mormon authorship

[Returning_Home]

When you used the words “unceremoniously closed for no reason” then it appeared to me that you thought I had had something to do with that. Now you have said you realized I didn’t. Fine.

That was my only point there.

No. I had no problem with answering your questions. They are not hard questions. What I deal with is that I have a responsibility, since I have chosen to participate on this forum, to lift the people in some way if I am going to respond to them. That is called following the Savior. That is what He sought to do–lift people.

But this response, like the others, is fraught with the non-Biblical and un-Christian postion of Mormonism, disguised as something that it’s not. When you say Jesus ‘lifted people,’ I would agree, lifted us out of our sinful state, but what you’re implying from your point of view is that he can lift us to exaltation and godhood, bypassing our sinful nature and original sin altogether, both of which are clearly stated in the Bible.

Your jesus wants you to be a god, which, therefore demeans his nature by equating him with what we are supposed to be capable of. Christians believe, based on the Bible, that we will, at the end of time, receive perfected bodies, but that, in no way, places us anywhere near His nature.

I asked that you change behavior to a conversation showing respect. This is, at most, following the forum request that people use charity in their interaction, but in a case such as we often see from those responding to LDS, I don’t see such a thing as interacting with charity is very apt to be possible from some of those posting but I think everyone knows how to at least act respectfully, even if disagreeing.

I haven’t been disrespectful to you a a person, but rather calling the lies of Mormonism exactly what they are. Your texts tell you that anyone not belonging to the church of the Lamb belongs to the church founded by Satan and that our creeds are all an abomination before Him.

Can you tell me where the charity is in that? To my knowledge, none of us have even come close to making those same claims about you and Mormons in general. As far as I know, we have all maintained that you, too, can be part of the true kingdom of God.

You want what your church has historically not given, charity and respect. Would you like proof?

“When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness.” (JOD 5:73)

“With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.” (JOD 8:99)

“What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.” (JOD 6:25)

Orson Pratt (Mormon Apostle)–"…all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism of the Lord’s supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people" (The Seer, pg 255)

Heber C. Kimball (First Counselor to Brigham Young)–“Christians - those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about - some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth…” (JOD 5:39)

Could you kindly point out the charity and respect in these quotes for me, please? I must’ve missed it.

I have never been offended by anything I have read that you posted on this forum. I don’t think in terms of being offended in this forum, at all. I do wish the people posting would learn to be more respectful, and have appreciated when the moderators have tried to help that become a reality.

Unfortunately, I think you have, which is not my intention. Your offense seems to take the form of being motivated to defend the faith because of the perception that our attacks on its false doctrines and creeds are somehow an ad hoc attack on you as a person. Your sense of self is tied to Mormonism and the priesthood and all of the responsibilities therein; without Mormonism, your self-worth and value takes a hit. The two are parasitic and feed on one another.

You are much more valuable to the true, real, and living God than you are to Joseph Smith as he burns in Hell. I’d like you to see that.

There is another issue also. A person with so much bitterness in their heart, such that every time they post the bitterness shows, ought for their own health to just leave the subject alone. Out of the abundance of the heart their mouth (their written word) speaks. (Matthew 12:34). Since I am very much aware of those kinds of issues, then I saw a need to make the attempt to help change the tone of the conversation.

Yes, I have bitterness over certain things in my life and I have regrets, too, both of which I’m slowly overcoming. That said, I don’t think I’m that much different from you or anyone else here but those have no part in what I’m doing right here, right now.

I don’t pull any punches. Since God put me here to do what I’m doing; I have to speak the truth, no matter the consequences but even with your last sentence, you quote the Bible, even though we know how the church views it, as being below the BOM in reliability and authority from God. And frankly, that offends me.

 

[rinnie]

I asked this question on another thread and was never answered. Maybe I can get a answer here.

Does the Mormon faith teach that Jesus Christ and St Michael the archangel are indeed the same Person.

I understand that the mormon faith agrees that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God. We agree on this. But does the faith teach or not teach that Jesus and St Michael are the same person?

 

[Catholic20064]

I asked this question on another thread and was never answered. Maybe I can get a answer here.

Does the Mormon faith teach that Jesus Christ and St Michael the archangel are indeed the same Person.

I understand that the mormon faith agrees that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God. We agree on this. But does the faith teach or not teach that Jesus and St Michael are the same person?

No. St. Michael the Archangel is Adam in Mormon doctrine.

 

[Returning_Home]

I asked this question on another thread and was never answered. Maybe I can get a answer here.

Does the Mormon faith teach that Jesus Christ and St Michael the archangel are indeed the same Person.

I understand that the mormon faith agrees that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God. We agree on this. But does the faith teach or not teach that Jesus and St Michael are the same person?

Catholic20064 is right; in Mormon theology, Adam and Michael are the same being but I think you where you included Jesus in the mix is because Mormons consider Jesus to be the pre-incarnate Jehovah from the Old Testament and the now-discredited Book of Abraham.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

The LDS church would have a difficult time claiming that the Book of Mormon is just an inspired story, because of all the historical events that they claim took place prior to Joseph Smith receiving it.

There could only be one way for the LDS church to be able to do this and thus possibly saving many who want to believe but more likely lose even more members. The only way I see is for the church to say, that after Martin Harris lost the original trascript the Golden Plates were forever taken from them. And Joseph Smith turned to a seer stone and his memory to try and recreate what he may have previously read on the golden plates.

The reason why I think this is plausible is because LDS members believe that the Book of Mormon was transcribed by what is know as an Urim and Thumim, which included a breastplate, spectacles and stones. After the Martin Harris incident it is mentioned in other works including the LDS church magazine the Ensign his translation process included him looking into a hat with a stone it it for the words.

The reason why I think they will not back away from this being an actual pre-columbian historical record is that the Reorganized LDS have tried to back away from these claims and have lost membership. If evidence was found to prove that this is the case and the LDS church leadership choose to keep it hidden for the sole purpose of maintaining membership and thus tithing dollars, then I am certain that even a Mormon God would be disappointed that his leaders of his church would cover up the truth.

 

[dianaiad]

I asked this question on another thread and was never answered. Maybe I can get a answer here.

Does the Mormon faith teach that Jesus Christ and St Michael the archangel are indeed the same Person.

No. I think that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I understand that the mormon faith agrees that Jesus Christ is indeed the son of God. We agree on this. But does the faith teach or not teach that Jesus and St Michael are the same person?

No. I think that’s the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We DO believe that Jesus was indeed Jehovah, though.

 

[LongJourney]

Rinnie, Diana is right. It is the JW’s who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Mormons believe that Adam is Michael the Archangel. There is more, though.

As Michael, the archangel, Adam led the forces of God against the armies of Lucifer in the War in Heaven. Under the direction of Elohim and Jehovah, he assisted in the Creation of the earth.

This is from an authoritative source. mormonwiki.com/Adam

 

[dianaiad]

Rinnie, Diana is right. It is the JW’s who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Mormons believe that Adam is Michael the Archangel. There is more, though.

This is from an authoritative source. mormonwiki.com/Adam

“more” than what, LJ?

The question was asked, it was answered. While your added information is correct, it was irrelevent to the question. So…what was your motive for adding it? Do I even need to ask?

.

 

[ParkerD]

When you say Jesus ‘lifted people,’ I would agree, lifted us out of our sinful state, but what you’re implying from your point of view is that he can lift us to exaltation and godhood, bypassing our sinful nature and original sin altogether, both of which are clearly stated in the Bible.

RH,
He lifted people while He was with them–even those who were still sinful. I wasn’t referring to “exaltation”–I was referring to what He did while He taught the people, blessed them, lifted them with His love and kindness.

I disagree that Jesus lifts by “bypassing our sinful nature and original sin.” Everyone who is ultimately lifted through the atonement will have come unto Him and repented, which does not “bypass” our sinful nature–it changes our sinful nature by cleansing our hearts as we repent and change. The Book of Mormon teaches this repeatedly, showing indeed that it is not “borrowed” from the Bible, although the Bible teaches this also but evidently not for some people. The atonement also covered the original sin of Eve and Adam that brought sin into the world. See 2 Nephi 2. (The reason I am citing Book of Mormon chapters is to stay on topic, for the moderators’ sake.) The atonement does indeed forgive Eve and Adam for their “original sin” through their repentance. Not one person living or dead carries their “original” sin on our heads.

Your texts tell you that (1) anyone not belonging to the church of the Lamb belongs to the church founded by Satan and that (2) our creeds are all an abomination before Him.

(1) Yes, so I assume you belong to the church of the Lamb if you follow the Savior.

(2) Creeds being “an abomination” is a separate teaching presented by Christ to say why Joseph Smith shouldn’t join any of the existing churches he had asked about joining. If creeds are memorized ritual sayings that don’t foster the love of God and of our fellow humankind deep in the heart of the person saying the creeds, then that is contrary to what Christ taught. If creeds don’t recognize Christ’s power to change our hearts through repentance and His grace and power–including the power even to bring us to a joint throne with Him–then they fall short of accepting His power and the magnitude of His suffering to do those very things.

Can you tell me where the charity is in that? To my knowledge, none of us have even come close to making those same claims about you and Mormons in general. As far as I know, we have all maintained that you, too, can be part of the true kingdom of God.

The Old Testament and the New Testament didn’t mince words when the people accepted the beliefs of the nations around them, and lost sight of the lifting that Christ promised to bring to them. I don’t think it would be charitable to know of an opportunity for many wonderful people and not even give them a clue about it.

You want what your church has historically not given, charity and respect. Would you like proof?

“When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness.” (JOD 5:73)

“With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.” (JOD 8:99)

“What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.” (JOD 6:25)

Orson Pratt (Mormon Apostle)–"…all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives baptism of the Lord’s supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people" (The Seer, pg 255)

Heber C. Kimball (First Counselor to Brigham Young)–“Christians - those poor, miserable priests Brother Brigham was speaking about - some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth…” (JOD 5:39)

Could you kindly point out the charity and respect in these quotes for me, please? I must’ve missed it.

I would say they are putting the words of Hosea, John (in Revelation), and Moses into words that were their own rhetoric. Any time the word “whore” or “whoring” is used in the Bible, it is talking about leaving the true God of Israel and instead finding other patterns of worship and belief. But you’re right that the words don’t sound very charitable. I would tend to blame the Biblical language they are taken from for that, if looking for somewhere for blame. The Bible is sometimes pretty harsh with language and metaphors in trying to get the people to look deep into their own heart.

Unfortunately, I think you have, which is not my intention. Your offense seems to take the form of being motivated to defend the faith because of the perception that our attacks on its false doctrines and creeds are somehow an ad hoc attack on you as a person. Your sense of self is tied to Mormonism and the priesthood and all of the responsibilities therein; without Mormonism, your self-worth and value takes a hit. The two are parasitic and feed on one another.

I posted this just so you will know that I read it. How could I feel attacked when I’m sitting here thinking the people making such claims have no idea what they’re talking about? I feel not the slightest bit of offense or being “attacked”. The words just mean the person writing is writing from a position of lack of knowledge.

Yes, I have bitterness over certain things in my life and I have regrets, too, both of which I’m slowly overcoming. That said, I don’t think I’m that much different from you or anyone else here but those have no part in what I’m doing right here, right now.

Well, I assume the atonement is helping you in your life to dislodge the bitterness, so may it be so.

 

[ParkerD]

RH (continuation),

…even with your last sentence, you quote the Bible, even though we know how the church views it, as being below the BOM in reliability and authority from God.

We (including I) believe the Bible more literally and reliably than any other religion whose teachings I have read about. So I would say the Bible is “higher in reliability” in the LDS church than in any other religion.

Your Jesus wants you to be a god, which, therefore demeans His nature by equating Him with what we are supposed to be capable of. Christians believe, based on the Bible, that we will, at the end of time, receive perfected bodies, but that, in no way, places us anywhere near His nature.

Yet that is exactly what He taught and what John taught. The divine nature, being perfect, being “like God”, gaining a “joint throne” through His grace.

Peace to you and all.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

When you are all done going over these book can you also discuss and evaluate the Qur’an, Talmud and any other books, possibly the writings associated with Dianetics, that all seem to be in the same genre or class? I think you could possibly rank them as to which one is the best read, or closest to the mark, and even judge them as to which one is most believable?

I have not read them all, but others might be able to chime in. I have a BOM that I go to when passages are referenced here as well as a Gnostic Bible. It too might be considered along with the BOM and Qur’an as it also has interesting stories. I prefer not to compare any to the Bible since if they are opposed they are obviously wrong. Any way it might be interesting when these BOM comments have dried up.

Thanks…

 

[LongJourney]

Interesting topic. I have read the Q’uarn,in English translation, of course. Without the Hadiths, which I presume are an aid to interpretation, I would hate to get into a discussion of it. And there is a ban on Islamic discussions currently in effect. Not very interesting to me.

I have done a lot of comparisons between the BoM and The Bible. In many places they are not necessarily opposed. In fact, I really like some of the stories in the BoM that are satires of Biblical stories. The mock Biblical fundamentalism, the Bible as literal truth, rather than as spiritual truth.

However, I have done some reading in the Gnostic Library, and I do find it interesting. Particularly when I compare Mormon Cosmology to Gnosticism.

 

[Returning_Home]

He lifted people while He was with them–even those who were still sinful. I wasn’t referring to “exaltation”–I was referring to what He did while He taught the people, blessed them, lifted them with His love and kindness.

The problem here is that since Mormonism has redefined the nature of mankind to being essentially good, the role of sin takes a back seat in the larger scheme of things. All of us who have bodies are supposedly those who fought on the side of good in the premortal existance during the war in Heaven. We were rewarded with bodies of flesh and the ability to progress in the process of eternal progression toward the ultimate goal of exaltation.

Of course you were referring to exaltation because that’s what’s Mormonism is all about: attaining godhood which the Mormon jesus makes clear in Moses 1:37-39. This is also confirmed by the Mormon notion of Hell being primarily for Satan and his angels. After all, isn’t the lowest level of Heaven better than Hell?

I disagree that Jesus lifts by “bypassing our sinful nature and original sin.” Everyone who is ultimately lifted through the atonement will have come unto Him and repented, which does not “bypass” our sinful nature–it changes our sinful nature by cleansing our hearts as we repent and change. The Book of Mormon teaches this repeatedly, showing indeed that it is not “borrowed” from the Bible, although the Bible teaches this also but evidently not for some people. The atonement also covered the original sin of Eve and Adam that brought sin into the world. See 2 Nephi 2. (The reason I am citing Book of Mormon chapters is to stay on topic, for the moderators’ sake.) The atonement does indeed forgive Eve and Adam for their “original sin” through their repentance. Not one person living or dead carries their “original” sin on our heads.

You’re free to disagree about Original Sin but that’s what defines Mormons as something other than Christians. It actually *is *Biblical.

I agree with you about what the BOM teaches, but this is where you now get into the disparity of what the BOM teaches versus what modern Mormonism teaches. The two clearly aren’t the same because Mormonism is a faith of works, none of which are found in the BOM at all.

I find no evidence that there’s forgiveness for Original Sin (Adam’s or anyone else’s), only the forgiveness for *all *sin through repentance in Jesus Christ. That’s it.

(1) Yes, so I assume you belong to the church of the Lamb if you follow the Savior.

(2) Creeds being “an abomination” is a separate teaching presented by Christ to say why Joseph Smith shouldn’t join any of the existing churches he had asked about joining. If creeds are memorized ritual sayings that don’t foster the love of God and of our fellow humankind deep in the heart of the person saying the creeds, then that is contrary to what Christ taught. If creeds don’t recognize Christ’s power to change our hearts through repentance and His grace and power–including the power even to bring us to a joint throne with Him–then they fall short of accepting His power and the magnitude of His suffering to do those very things.

Used in its proper context, this is blatantly untrue because, when paired with JS-History 1:18, Smith was allegedly told that all churches on earth were an abomination before God. Since that includes Catholicism as of 1823 and the fact that I identify myself as Catholic, this clearly includes me and everyone else here. Your interpretation is the modern and politically correct one, not the one exposed by the BOM.

This goes to the question that I’ve asked several times before: how, if all churches were founded by Satan as of Smith’s conversation with God and Jesus in 1823, are they not an abomination before God now? Is not Catholicism almost exactly the way it was then? I’m pretty sure that it is.

The Old Testament and the New Testament didn’t mince words when the people accepted the beliefs of the nations around them, and lost sight of the lifting that Christ promised to bring to them. I don’t think it would be charitable to know of an opportunity for many wonderful people and not even give them a clue about it.

I agree here, too, but the problem with what you said is about Christ in the Old Testament; OT people had no idea who “Christ” was, only that there was a savior promised. The BOM makes similar mistakes because it names Christ long before he was known to the public. This is probably because Joseph Smith ran out of ideas to describe Christ before he got to that part of the book.

You’re also referring to the Lamanites and Nephites, neither of which actually existed, so the point is null and void. The Bible refers to “Gentiles” and “Jews” because there were no other groups of people that needed to be addressed. The “other sheep” were simply those who hadn’t heard the Word yet.

And you’ve unintentionally undermined your own argument for Mormonism having the restored Aaronic priesthood because it was originally for those descended from Aaron and evetually became a political office of sorts after being occupied by Greece, Rome, Persia, and Babylon, the destruction of the temple and the deportation of the Jews. It was truly and eternally lost at that point, having already fulfilled its purpose.

 

[Returning_Home]

I would say they are putting the words of Hosea, John (in Revelation), and Moses into words that were their own rhetoric. Any time the word “whore” or “whoring” is used in the Bible, it is talking about leaving the true God of Israel and instead finding other patterns of worship and belief. But you’re right that the words don’t sound very charitable. I would tend to blame the Biblical language they are taken from for that, if looking for somewhere for blame. The Bible is sometimes pretty harsh with language and metaphors in trying to get the people to look deep into their own heart.

Once more, I agree, yet throughout the BOM we find Elizabethan English which had falled from favor by Smith’s time. It’s an awkward fit at best. Since we’ve already established that all churches as of 1823 were of Satan, the terms “whore” and “abomination” are easily applied to Catholicism, Protestantism, and every other faith derived from either. This, then, leaves the original intent that Smith had when he wrote the BOM, and that was that only the church that he was creating was correct and all others were wrong.

Of course I’ll read it and respond. Again, that’s why I’ve been put here by God. I see you’ve taken the old position of we don’t know what we’re talking about. That gets pretty old because I’m able to go toe-to-toe with you or any other apologist on any day of the week, cutting through the nonsense and getting to the facts of the matter.

Well, I assume the atonement is helping you in your life to dislodge the bitterness, so may it be so.

On my way to work, I pass very near my local Catholic church and I sometimes stop in for a few mintues to pray to God for help in being a better husband, father, friend, employee, and person in general.

I feel a lot better after I do.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Returning_Home]

We (including I) believe the Bible more literally and reliably than any other religion whose teachings I have read about. So I would say the Bible is “higher in reliability” in the LDS church than in any other religion.

This is blatantly untrue and your own texts prove it. What you, personally believe, however, may be another matter but it clearly goes against the church’s teachings; besides, we’ve already covered this.

Yet that is exactly what He taught and what John taught. The divine nature, being perfect, being “like God”, gaining a “joint throne” through His grace.

Only through guile and misinterpretation can this be made to look like we’ll become gods. Being “like” God doesn’t mean becoming a God. But you already gave yourself away here with the term “joint throne,” which is neither separate nor distinct from God’s throne.

 

[Esdra]

A Baptist minister says the Book of Mormon is consistent with Jesus Christ’s teachings in the New Testament:

The Baptist Version of the Book of Mormon - by Lynn ridenhour

Hi Bot,

very interesting Link.

But guess what: I have already known that - or at least suspected that the Book of Mormon is a “Protestant, or a Baptist Book”.
And I know what I am talking about - using a “Book of Mormon- Reading Plan” I have also read great parts of the BoM.
I mean, no wonder that JS used Protestant Theology in his BoM - even if he didn’t get a relevation from God and the BoM is fake - he was at least for quite a long time a Methodist preacher - and people liked him in the Beginning. (I have read that somwhere in the inet - but please don’t ask me where… - I have sort of a photographic mind - so I can remember nearly anything I read but seldom know where I have read it!).
You won’t find througout the whole Book of Mormon an opposition to the Bible.
Mormonism only became really a cult when JS got some “cultic” phrophesies (which are not in the RLDS Edition of the D&C!!) and started translating the Book of Abraham (now in the "Pearl of Great Price)) - at that point Mormonism (with this term I refer to the LDS Church and maybe the fundamentalist Mormon groups) became really weird and became finally a cult.

The BoM itself is not a cultic book but a real (Protestant) Christian Book.
This is also the Reason why I keep saying the the RLDS Churches (especially the CoC) are on the right track. - They only accept parts of the D&C, the inspired Version of the Bible (Joseph Smith Translation - JST) and of course the BoM.

The Problem with JS was that he leaned too much out of the window later on.
When he started to listen more to Lucifer than to God.
I can believe that an Angel gave him the BoM to translate and that he HAD the Ummim and Tummim (by the way: Did you know the Urim and Thummim are to be found in the Holy Bible: Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8 to name two passages from the bible.

Well, I am sorry I am a little repetative in this thread.
See above when, in my opinion, as a non-Mormon (also non-Restorationist), “the LDS Church went wrong.”

Best wishes and the peace and joy of Christ Jesus may always be with all of you,
Esdra

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Bot,

very interesting Link.

But guess what: I have already known that - or at least suspected that the Book of Mormon is a “Protestant, or a Baptist Book”.
And I know what I am talking about - using a “Book of Mormon- Reading Plan” I have also read great parts of the BoM.
I mean, no wonder that JS used Protestant Theology in his BoM - even if he didn’t get a relevation from God and the BoM is fake - he was at least for quite a long time a Methodist preacher - and people liked him in the Beginning. (I have read that somwhere in the inet - but please don’t ask me where… - I have sort of a photographic mind - so I can remember nearly anything I read but seldom know where I have read it!).
You won’t find througout the whole Book of Mormon an opposition to the Bible.
Mormonism only became really a cult when JS got some “cultic” phrophesies (which are not in the RLDS Edition of the D&C!!) and started translating the Book of Abraham (now in the "Pearl of Great Price)) - at that point Mormonism (with this term I refer to the LDS Church and maybe the fundamentalist Mormon groups) became really weird and became finally a cult.

The BoM itself is not a cultic book but a real (Protestant) Christian Book.
This is also the Reason why I keep saying the the RLDS Churches (especially the CoC) are on the right track. - They only accept parts of the D&C, the inspired Version of the Bible (Joseph Smith Translation - JST) and of course the BoM.

The Problem with JS was that he leaned too much out of the window later on.
When he started to listen more to Lucifer than to God.
I can believe that an Angel gave him the BoM to translate and that he HAD the Ummim and Tummim (by the way: Did you know the Urim and Thummim are to be found in the Holy Bible: Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8 to name two passages from the bible.

Well, I am sorry I am a little repetative in this thread.
See above when, in my opinion, as a non-Mormon (also non-Restorationist), “the LDS Church went wrong.”

Best wishes and the peace and joy of Christ Jesus may always be with all of you,
Esdra

Interesting post…and you are certainly entitled to your opinions about Joseph Smith, but I’ would like to note at least one thing: Joseph Smith was never a Methodist preacher.

 

[Esdra]

Interesting post…and you are certainly entitled to your opinions about Joseph Smith, but I’ would like to note at least one thing: Joseph Smith was never a Methodist preacher.

Hi diana,

well thank you. This is just what I think.
I mean, this Baptist preacher writing on the website is certainly right that the BoM is not only for LDS or Restorationist’s but for ALL Evangelicals, as he writes.

Yeah, just read it on wikipedia. I got mistaken I guess.
But at least he and his family and his ancestors were protestant!

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[RGWA]

Jesus said “by their fruits you shall know them”

 

[Esdra]

Hi Bot,

very interesting Link.

But guess what: I have already known that - or at least suspected that the Book of Mormon is a “Protestant, or a Baptist Book”.

You won’t find througout the whole Book of Mormon an opposition to the Bible.
Mormonism only became really a cult when JS got some “cultic” phrophesies (which are not in the RLDS Edition of the D&C!!) and started translating the Book of Abraham (now in the "Pearl of Great Price)) - at that point Mormonism (with this term I refer to the LDS Church and maybe the fundamentalist Mormon groups) became really weird and became finally a cult.

But what the BoM is definetly in opposition with is the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.
It is throughout an evangelical Book and this is what Lynn Ridenhour, the author of the article on center place - see post #156 has ment when he writes about the Baptist Version of the BoM. - The doctrine of the Baptists’ and the BoM is more or less identical!
Please also refer my other post here: #120
These two posts somehow belong together…

ESDRA:

The BoM itself is not a cultic book but a real (Protestant) Christian Book.
This is also the Reason why I keep saying the the RLDS Churches (especially the CoC) are on the right track. - They only accept parts of the D&C, the inspired Version of the Bible (Joseph Smith Translation - JST) and of course the BoM.