Mormon response to Matthew 22

[Karin]

The answer is No.

zerinus

Yes thank you I got that from Paul already…
also can I ask another question…who are these people that the BoM is talking about…Moroni,Omni,Alma etc?
Also since the BoM states “*This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”…*what do the American Indians think of this?

 

[Tmaque]

First of all I don’t care what the Catholics think. I am only interested in the truth. Secondly, the Catholics too don’t believe the Bible is sufficient, so they have augmented it with their Tradition. We think we have done better. We have augmented it with modern scripture and additional revelation from the Lord.

zerinus

The Catholic Church has not “augmented” scripture with tradition.
The Catholic Church believes, as the bible states, that the Church itself is “the pillar and foundation of truth”. The bible as we know it came out of spoken tradition. The Catholic Church, through the Holy Spirit, compiled the New Testament and decided which books were inspired and which were not. It’s interesting that LDS believe the notion that a church which had lost all it’s authority and guidance from God, somehow managed to compile the NT in the 5th century from the hundreds of books that were thought(by some) to be inspired.

You are right when you say:
“We think we have done better. We have augmented it with modern scripture and additional revelation from the Lord.”

It’s all you, you have done better, you have come up with a better plan. Interesting that there’s no credit given to God here. Could it be a freudian slip?

 

[Tmaque]

Yes thank you I got that from Paul already…
also can I ask another question…who are these people that the BoM is talking about…Moroni,Omni,Alma etc?
Also since the BoM states “*This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”…*what do the American Indians think of this?

Non-LDS native Americans find it as nonsensical as modern anthropologists do.

 

[Karin]

Non-LDS native Americans find it as nonsensical as modern anthropologists do.

thank you.
Also is it true that Joseph Smith spoke as God at times? Did he think he was God?

 

[Karin]

Non-LDS native Americans find it as nonsensical as modern anthropologists do.

It would seem that the DNA does not agree either…
Is The Mormon Church stuck with an embarrassing book it cannot historically support?

*Ironically, the database compiled by BYU can only conclude that there is no evidence of a Native American/Israel connection. In fact, no DNA study at any university has ever demonstrated otherwise. However, it is doubtful that BYU would ever release any research that could potentially prove embarrassing to the church. **Simon Southerton, a former Mormon bishop and molecular biologist, who has extensive background in DNA research, said any research at BYU could only disprove the Book of Mormon. He added that any scientific study of DNA would likewise dispel the claim by Mormons that some Pacific Islanders are connected historically to the ancient Jews. “The [existing] DNA research shows overwhelmingly that Native Americans and Polynesians are descended from Asian ancestors,” said Southerton. He quit the church after researching this issue. Southerton summarized this dilemma saying, “Is it honest to keep [church] members in the dark about the mountains of evidence for these facts while discussing the power of this technology to reveal genealogical relationships?” *

 

[Tmaque]

thank you.
Also is it true that Joseph Smith spoke as God at times? Did he think he was God?

I know of no instance where he talked AS God. He never claimed to BE God. He did claim that he would be a God, that we all could be Gods. He also claimed that God was once a mortal person just like you and me.

 

[zerinus]

thank you.
Also is it true that Joseph Smith spoke as God at times? Did he think he was God?

Karin, I am sorry if it sounds rude, but you do talk a lot of nonsense, and I am not prepared to respond to that. Thank you.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

Karin, I am sorry if it sounds rude, but you do talk a lot of nonsense, and I am not prepared to respond to that. Thank you.

zerinus

zerinus, I am sorry if it sounds rude, but you do talk alot of nonsense.

No inregards to my question I had read it somewhere so I thought I would ask if it was true

 

[PaulDupre]

thank you.
Also is it true that Joseph Smith spoke as God at times? Did he think he was God?

Hi Karin,
I think what you are referring to was Joseph Smith’s method of publishing his purported revelations from Jesus. Whether speaking or writing, Joseph often used the first person, pretending to “channel” Jesus, as if Jesus was speaking through his mouth.

Many of the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are styled in this manner, with Smith speaking as Jesus in the first person. Here’s an example:

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall ago forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.
6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, O inhabitants of the earth.
7 Wherefore, fear and tremble, O ye people, for what I the Lord have decreed in them shall be fulfilled. - D&C 1:4-7

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[Karin]

Hi Karin,
I think what you are referring to was Joseph Smith’s method of publishing his purported revelations from Jesus. Whether speaking or writing, Joseph often used the first person, pretending to “channel” Jesus, as if Jesus was speaking through his mouth.

Many of the revelations recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants are styled in this manner, with Smith speaking as Jesus in the first person. Here’s an example:

Hope this helps,
Paul

Thank you Paul…it helps greatly!

 

[majick275]

Karin, I am sorry if it sounds rude, but you do talk a lot of nonsense, and I am not prepared to respond to that. Thank you.

zerinus

and why would anyone here think it important for amgid to respond to any post since he can’t even be trusted to give an accurate LDS position?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

First of all I don’t care what the Catholics think. I am only interested in the truth. Secondly, the Catholics too don’t believe the Bible is sufficient, so they have augmented it with their Tradition. We think we have done better. We have augmented it with modern scripture and additional revelation from the Lord.
zerinus

The point is “the truth” in this case is the Bible. If you believe the Bible is missing important parts and even corrupted then the Gospel as recorded in Scripture is untrustworthy at the end of the day. At that point the credibility of Christ is lost, if He cant preserve the Gospel then are His claims about Himself really true? No non-Christian would trust such a book.

The Mormon Church has always maintained that the Bible is hopelessly corrupt and untrustworthy:

1 Nephi 13:

The above passage claims that the bible we have now is not the same bible written by the prophets and apostles. Many of the “plain and precious parts” were taken away by the “great and abominable Church”. Why? “that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” (1 Ne:13:27)

Verse 29 states that those who believe the bible with the plain and precious parts deliberately removed by the great and abominable church stumble so that Satan has great power over them.

Continued…

This is very interesting indeed…so the “plain and most precious” thing comes directly out of the BoM! At this point they are putting their faith in the BoM and not the Bible, wasnt Islam the first to make the claim the Bible is good but corrupted and another book must be trusted? With this in mind the Koran has just as much claim to be inspired as the BoM.

Many believe that the A of F should be edited to reflect Joseph Sith’s intended meaning–that the Bible is correct so far as it has been “transmitted” correctly.

Well I dont see a fair way to phrase if the AoF leaves out the part about it being corrupted.

False. There is a difference between saying that the Bible has been tampered with and parts removed from it and saying that it is “hopelessly corrupt”. The Bible is part of our standard works. We put it on a par with the rest, and treat it the same. The Book of Mormon says that one of its purposes is to prove to mankind that the Bible is true. This year the Bible is curriculum being taught in our Sunday School lessons.

This doesnt make sense, the BoM directly says the Bible has been corrupted (eg words changed, added, etc) as well as important parts removed, by definition it CANT be on par with the rest.
How can you “treat it the same”…the only way you could claim that is if you claimed the BoM has been tampered with. A person cant accept the Bible as “true” in the sense it preserves the truth because it clearly didnt.