Mormon history rewritten: Nephi or Moroni?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BartBurk

Guest
There seems to be some confusion in LDS history about whether Nephi or Moroni was the messenger who came to Joseph Smith, and apparently it was Joseph Smith who caused the confusion. He couldn’t keep his story straight. How can we believe someone who is so completely inconsistent – is his report of his early history credible? Here are the details:

mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm

Mormons don’t seem to have any problems changing their history to meet their needs.
 
Whenever Mormons are confronted which such problems they always blame it on; bad dictation, the editor made a mistake, someone lost the original and replaced it with another, there were so many angels I lost track of their names and last but not least…THE DOG ATE IT!
 
BartBurk said:
There seems to be some confusion in LDS history about whether Nephi or Moroni was the messenger who came to Joseph Smith, and apparently it was Joseph Smith who caused the confusion. He couldn’t keep his story straight. How can we believe someone who is so completely inconsistent – is his report of his early history credible? Here are the details:

mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm

Mormons don’t seem to have any problems changing their history to meet their needs.
Click to expand...

People don’t have any trouble believing the Bible, even though it has the same problem: Moses’ father-in-law is named variously:​

  • Jethro
  • Hobab
  • Reuel
Maybe the angel is called by both names ? Why not ?
 
because Nephi and Moroni are two distinct people. LDS explain this as a transcription error, as MANY other issues are explained.
 
You people and the Tanners seem to think that if someone is listed as “editor” of a newspaper, they sit there every day putting every word on the printed page, and no one else is involved. Is that really how you think a newspaper is put together today, or ever was if it had as “editor” someone who had many other things going on in their life? Goodness! Think, people!

Ah, well, every “easy out” is as good as another. The Book of Mormon is not for lazy students. Any one of you ought to write such a book yourself. You could make it up about the aborigines of Australia. The Tanner organization would love you for it, and pay you big bucks. But as Jerusha pointed out recently, the text had better be college reading level material, or you won’t have replicated something similar to Book of Mormon. Also, put believable chiasmus in it, and several flashbacks as well as doctrine that brings lasting personal and family happiness.

The Book of Mormon truly is a sifter of hearts. So is the description of how it was translated. I love everything about this sifting process that God has used to detect the real desires of the hearts of humankind.
 
Parker, the only college-level reading material that is well-written is highly technical. And the BOM ain’t. College-level stuff is either technical or badly written.

People should write in a way that is understandable to as many people as possible. Unless they don’t want anyone who is not a college-level reader to understand it.
 
Jerusha said:
Parker, the only college-level reading material that is well-written is highly technical. And the BOM ain’t. College-level stuff is either technical or badly written.

People should write in a way that is understandable to as many people as possible. Unless they don’t want anyone who is not a college-level reader to understand it.
Click to expand...
The Bible is first grade level…

-signed the writers of the Bible
 
ParkerD said:
The Book of Mormon truly is a sifter of hearts. So is the description of how it was translated. I love everything about this sifting process that God has used to detect the real desires of the hearts of humankind.
Click to expand...
I love how you have made everything about your god revolve around yourself.

mormon god: “ParkerD, you’re the best!”
ParkerD: “I know!”

Tolkien did a better job of creating an imaginary world.
 
Depends on what translation you get. Of course, you are KJO, so what do you expect? Amazing that the LDS church squelched the “Easy to Read BOM” which really distorts some of the teachings and stories.
 
Jerusha said:
Depends on what translation you get. Of course, you are KJO, so what do you expect? Amazing that the LDS church squelched the “Easy to Read BOM” which really distorts some of the teachings and stories.
Click to expand...
Jerusha,
For the record, I have an eleven-year-old daughter who enjoys taking her turn reading in our family, the Book of Mormon, and struggles pronouncing a few words but understands the messages quite well. Same for my boys.

Rebecca,
No wonder you didn’t like the Book of Mormon, and like the writings of John who wrote in third person. Your dig didn’t bother me. Just because I have a relationship with divine presences in my life that give me faith and hope, and am certain that I understand the voice of the Good Shepherd, doesn’t mean I am any different than 5-7 million other people, thousands of whom I look up to and always will.

You probably don’t like the writings of Paul. He wrote in first person a lot, and rejoiced a lot. I don’t deny that I love the gospel and what it has done and does for my family and loved ones.
 
ParkerD said:
Jerusha,

Rebecca,
No wonder you didn’t like the Book of Mormon, and like the writings of John who wrote in third person. Your dig didn’t bother me. Just because I have a relationship with divine presences in my life that give me faith and hope, and am certain that I understand the voice of the Good Shepherd, doesn’t mean I am any different than 5-7 million other people, thousands of whom I look up to and always will.
Click to expand...
I never said you were absent of faith or hope.
You probably don’t like the writings of Paul. He wrote in first person a lot, and rejoiced a lot. I don’t deny that I love the gospel and what it has done and does for my family and loved ones.
Click to expand...
Mormons telling me my feelings and what I like or don’t like. Predictable.

“Pale Fire” is out of your reach, I don’t recommend it for you.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I never said you were absent of faith or hope.

Mormons telling me my feelings and what I like or don’t like. Predictable.

“Pale Fire” is out of your reach, I don’t recommend it for you.
Click to expand...
Rebecca,
You’re the one who wrote that you loved the Book of John. (I remembered.) But whatever…
 
Religio71 said:
because Nephi and Moroni are two distinct people. LDS explain this as a transcription error, as MANY other issues are explained.
Click to expand...

But why must Nephi father of Laman & Lemuel be the only Nephi ? There are 29 Azariahs in the OT - they are not all the same man. The same source gives Michael as the name of an angel, & of several Levites: does that make those Levites incarnate angels ? Of course not 🙂​

So the objection is not irrefutable. We would then have:
  • the angel called variously Moroni & Nephi
  • the man named Nephi who is the ancestor of this Moroni
This is no different from the procedure followed to free the Bible of seeming contradictory - why are Mormons not to be allowed to use it ? It contradicts nothing in Mormon doctrine: it requires no textual alteration in the BoM. So insofar as it is a problem, it is of a very different kind from the problems that arise in reference to the “Book of Abraham”.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Mormons telling me my feelings and what I like or don’t like. Predictable.
Click to expand...
Well, when ever I try to defend being courteous to others on this forum, especially when political debates get heated, I get told what I believe and don’t believe from my fellow Catholics. Goodness, I wonder if some of the angriest Catholics on the net reside here sometimes, but in the end, what I think of other people won’t resolve the problem. Often, it will make it worse. Instead of remarking with “predictable”, perhaps there is a kinder way to respond to what some LDS may say to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top