Praying About the Book of Mormon - Is it Biblical?

[ParkerD]

I understand that God gives us experiences through the Holy Spirit.

However, the Bible tells us how to discern them. How do we discern them in Mormonism?

FabiusMaximus,
I already answered your question on this, and I dislike being redundant. The aspects I described are also contained in the Bible, so every one of them should be familiar to you already. But I’ll tell you what–to aid in your understanding, tonight when I get time (I haven’t time now), I’ll re-post point by point and list the Biblical teaching supporting each aspect of discerning truth by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Have a good day.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But why was he carrying a sword in the first place? And certainly christ knew that he was carrying a sword. And yes, in this instance since prophecy was being fulfilled jesus told him to put the sword away, But he was still carrying a sword. Any comments?

You may want to research the ‘sword’ that the Apostles carried. Soldiers of the time had swords/spears, armor and shields. Surely, whatever type blade carried by the Apostles, we know they had two swords from scriptures, they were not considered ‘armed’ by the military standards. Secondly, we know they had just celebrated Pasch, at which time a lamb was slaughtered. Did they have a military sword or a sacrificial knife? The Greek word used, in Matthew 26:52, for ‘sword’ was ‘machaira’.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh’-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Christ, Himself, was armed with a sword.

**Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars. And from his mouth came out a sharp two-edged sword. And his face was as the sun shineth in his power.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two-edged sword, that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty. **

Irregardless of what type blades the Apostles had, Christ commanded them to put away their swords and went freely with His captors.

Why were two swords enough? Allegorically, two swords represent the twofold power of the Church, temporal and spiritual. These swords are used by Mormons, as well as Catholics, to excommunicate, which cuts a man off from the Church.

What was meant by Christ’s words, ‘for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword?’ Was this a prophetic message to the Jews who took swords to capture Christ? Did those who took Him perish with the swords in the destruction of Jerusalem, by the Roman army?

Let’s think about Christ healing the wound struck by the sword at His capture. Many times when Christ healed during His ministry He said, ‘your sins are forgiven.’ Christ healed perfectly. The Apostle cut off the ‘right’ ear. Jews who had lost their right ear, in reading and hearing scriptures, had lost their understanding of heavenly things. But, again, Christ perfectly healed the right ear. Was this one of the Jews who converted, as told in Acts 2:37?

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.
Act 2:37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

St. Augustine reminds us that Moses who killed the Egyptian, became the head of the Synagogue and Peter who mutilates Malchus, becomes the head of the Church. Both serving out their lifetimes.

Every word spoken by Christ and every action is a mystery with teachings, prophecies and understandings to be sought by believers. Can everything be understood in a person’s lifetime? We can only continue to read scriptures with scriptures and pray for our own understandings.

Give us one example of a ‘martyr’ who died fighting to save their own life?

**Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.**

 

[kikkichan]

…

I just love Americans. Here we have a man in prison with his brother and two other volunteers. A mob of hundred men in black painted faces storm the prison, armed to the teeth, firing randomly at the door of the prison to kill as many people as possible. Joseph, seeing his brother murdered, picks up the pistol and fires six shots. He is murdered.

And yet, the catholic americans find no fault with the mob but with Joseph. How to figure that out?

Why me,

Can’t speak for any one else, but I am an American and a Catholic and I agree that John Smith’s death was indeed murder (in cold blood). I haven’t read every non-Mormon poster here, so I can’t be sure, but they typically have been focused on whether or not John Smith was/is a martyr and not whether or not he was murdered. He should have been safe while being held in the jail and he should have been able to go to trial. (I hope, at least he was charged! even though, I’m not sure the charges were just). Also, considering the ease at which the mob entered, I’d suspect that his jailers we at least complicit if not active participants. As far as I’m concerned, any injury that John Smith caused that night was deserved. Even, though John Smith’s possession of a gun was illegal, I find no fault in him using it. And certainly, the action of the mob was also illegal.

Having said that, I’m not sure I’d call him a martyr, but the taking of his life was definitely a criminal act.

–kc

 

[RebeccaJ]

Having said that, I’m not sure I’d call him a martyr, but the taking of his life was definitely a criminal act.

–kc

Exactly the point being made by everyone. No one here advocates murder, that is just why me’s anti-Catholic tendencies showing.

 

[sablouwho]

…but I suggest you never let your mind think that there aren’t those who actually understand the Holy Spirit and how He communicates to the hearts and minds of people who are sincere in their prayers.

Parker, could you please clarify to whom are you referring above? (e.g LDS only, or other Christians as well)

 

[zerinus]

I don’t pretend to be an expert in logic, but to me, the statement “the BoM is true, therefore the CoJCoLDS is the True Church” appears to be a non sequitur.

Non-Sequitur:
An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.

This is one of the issues I had when I was considering the LDS thing. Because using Moroni’s challenge, I could have concluded that one of these other groups was the True Church. Believing the BoM doesn’t appear, at least not to my mind, to point uniquely to the CoJCoLDS.

This very topic is one that I struggled with. And I felt that none of my LDS friends/acquaintances (except for one) is comfortable trying to help me sort that one out. They seemed to dismiss it or to be uncomfortable with it.

Don’t forget that we are talking about the testimony of the Holy Ghost here, not just about any kind of “conviction”. I believe that the Holy Ghost will not, and indeed cannot, bear witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon in conjunction with any other Church than the LDS Church. Why? Because it is the only one that is true. It is not possible for the Holy Spirit to use the Book of Mormon (or anything else for that matter) to testify of something that is not true. Now if you don’t believe that Mormonism is true at all, then that logic obviously does not apply. But from my point of view as a believer, it does.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, could you please clarify to whom are you referring above? (e.g LDS only, or other Christians as well)

Salouwho,
I certainly mean any person who is familiar with the promptings of the Holy Spirit in their personal life, and recognizes those promptings as opposed to the other kinds of influences or inner thoughts and feelings that are distinctly different than the promptings of the Holy Spirit. This would not be excluded to the LDS (nor do all LDS necessarily have the promptings of the Spirit), but will completely match the criteria explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.

It is an individual case situation, one-to-one: the Holy Spirit directly communicating to the individual person, and the individual person recognizing this and knowing that they are being “led” and “guided” and “prompted” with knowledge of something they would otherwise not know or with guidance to do something they would otherwise not do.

Thanks for asking for the clarification. I sincerely appreciate that.

 

[aspirant]

I believe that the Holy Ghost will not, and indeed cannot, bear witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon in conjunction with any other Church than the LDS Church.

Obviously the other Smith-derived Restorationist groups, like the CC(RLDS), disagree.

 

[zerinus]

On an unrelated note, can anyone tell me about the translations Mormons use in other languages? Do they always go for one of the archaic translations, if one exists, or do Mormons who speak other languages sometimes use Bibles translated into contemporary language even when an archaic translation exists?

I mean, for example, do German Mormons use a 400 year-old German translation, or do they use a contemporary German Bible?

I am not familiar those languages, so I cannot give you specific answers; but I can tell you that we don’t use the KJV because it is “old”. We use it because we happen to believe it is the best one around (in English). That doesn’t mean it is perfect; but we think it has never been bettered when all factors are taken into consideration, such as style, mode of expression, strict adherence to the original text, and clarity and beauty of expression. I am sure in foreign languages the Church follows the same policy. They adopt one that they deem in their inspired judgement to be best one around. It could be old or new. In well established Christian cultures such a German, French, or Spanish, they will have well established editions of the Bible that may indeed be old, which the Church uses. In other cases more modern translations may be the only one that exists.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks, it does. Perhaps a Mormon can comment on this, however I don’t see that they disagree with any of this. It’s an interpretation issue, especially with the issue of when “the beginning” was (i.e., is Genesis 1:1 referring to an absolute “beginning”, or is it referring to a relative “beginning” when creation began).

Thank you Theosis, that is correct. You are turning out to be good Mormon theologian! As I had mentioned in my earlier discussions with you, there are passages in the Bible that teach that Jesus was created and had a beginning (Colossians 1:15; Revelations 3:14); while others which appear to teach the opposite. So there is an apparent contradiction in the Bible, as there is also in LDS scripture.

 

[Tmaque]

Thank you Theosis, that is correct. You are turning out to be good Mormon theologian! As I had mentioned in my earlier discussions with you, there are passages in the Bible that teach that Jesus was created and had a beginning (Colossians 1:15; Revelations 3:14); while others which appear to teach the opposite. So there is an apparent contradiction in the Bible, as there is also in LDS scripture.

Colossians mentions that Christ is the “firstborn of all creation”. It has nothing to do with time. This passage refers to his position as the “primary one”, the creator himself, which is the meaning of the greek word which is used here…prototokos. Please read further in Colossians 1 and you will find Christ called the “firstborn of the dead”. Does this mean he was the first person ever raised from the dead? No, again it’s not about time, it’s about WHO he is. He’s the"primary one" who defeated death. He is the source of creation, totally uncreated, as stated in John 1, and as you mention Rev 3 (if understood correctly) among other places.

 

[Tmaque]

I am not familiar those languages, so I cannot give you specific answers; but I can tell you that we don’t use the KJV because it is “old”. We use it because we happen to believe it is the best one around (in English). That doesn’t mean it is perfect; but we think it has never been bettered when all factors are taken into consideration, such as style, mode of expression, strict adherence to the original text, and clarity and beauty of expression. I am sure in foreign languages the Church follows the same policy. They adopt one that they deem in their inspired judgement to be best one around. It could be old or new. In well established Christian cultures such a German, French, or Spanish, they will have well established editions of the Bible that may indeed be old, which the Church uses. In other cases more modern translations may be the only one that exists.

That’s interesting given the fact that the KJV is missing the books removed by Martin Luther. I would think a true restored church would use the same OT as Jesus and his apostles did.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

jw’s and islam are close seconds.

At least JWs use scripture.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

ProdigalSon1,
How inconvenient of the Lord to require that the Holy Spirit be obtained by faith, eh? It is very clear to me why that is, but evidently not clear to one such as yourself.

God never asked us to have blind faith in a person who claimed to be a prophet. He proved they spoke for Him by accurately telling what would come to pass. God proved JS was a false prophet because not a single prophesy he gave came true! a man flipping a coin should have gotten more predictions correct that JS>

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

To expand on this a bit, Christian martyrs act as Jesus acts…

Without violence, willingly dying for Christ.

JS is the last person I would ever want to defend but Jesus did instruct the disciples that if they didnt have a sword that they should sell their tunic and buy one.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

JS is the last person I would ever want to defend but Jesus did instruct the disciples that if they didnt have a sword that they should sell their tunic and buy one.

And then He told them two was enough…against armored, military personnel.

He also taught:

**Mat 16:25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. **

Mat 5:39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:

**CHRYS. What is this? He who said, If any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, now arms His disciples, and with a sword only. For if it were fitting to be completely armed, not only must a man possess a sword, but shield and helmet. But even though a thousand had arms of this kind, how could the eleven be prepared for all the attacks and lying in wait of people, tyrants, allies, and nations, and how should they not quake at the mere sight of armed men, who had been brought up near lakes and rivers? We must not then suppose that He ordered them to possess swords, but by the swords He points at the secret attack of the Jews. And hence it follows, For I say to you, that this that is written must, be accomplished in me: And he was numbered with the transgressors.

THEOPHYL. While they were contending among themselves above concerning priority, He said, It is not a time of dignities, but rather of danger and slaughter. Behold I even your Master am led to a disgraceful death, to be reckoned with the transgressors. For these things which are prophesied of Me have an end, that is, a fulfillment. Wishing then to hint at a violent attack, He made mention of a sword, not altogether revealing it, lest they should be seized with dismay, nor did He entirely provide that they should not be shaken by these sudden attacks, but that afterwards recovering, they might marvel how He gave Himself up to the Passion, a ransom for the salvation of men.

BASIL; Or the Lord does not bid them carry purse and scrip and buy a sword, but predicts that it should come to pass, that in truth the Apostles, forgetful of the time of the Passion, of the gifts and law of their Lord, would dare to take up the sword. For often does the Scripture make use of the imperative form of speech in the place of prophecy. Still in many books we do not find, Let him take, or buy, but, he will take, he will buy.

THEOPHYL. Or He hereby foretell to them that they would incur hunger and thirst, which He implies by the scrip, and sundry kinds of misery, which he intends by the sword.

CYRIL; Or else; When our Lord says, He who has a purse, let him take it, likewise a scrip, His discourse He addressed to His disciples, but in reality He regards every individual Jew; as if He says, If any Jew is rich in resources, let him collect them together and fly. But if any one oppressed with extreme poverty applies himself to religion, let him also sell his cloak and buy a sword. For the terrible attack of battle shall overtake them, so that nothing shall suffice to resist it. He next lays open the cause of these evils, namely, that He suffered the penalty due to the wicked, being crucified with thieves. And when it shall have come at last to this, the word of dispensation will receive its end. But to the persecutors shall happen all that has been foretold by the Prophets. These things then God prophesied concerning what should befall the country of the Jews, but the disciples understood not the depth of His words, thinking they had need of swords against the coming attack of the traitor. Whence it follows; But they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.

CHRYS. And in truth, if He wished them to use human aid, not a hundred swords would have sufficed; but if He willed not the assistance of man, even two are superfluous.

THEOPHYL. Our Lord then was unwilling to blame them as not understanding Him, but saying, It is enough, He dismissed them; as when we are addressing any one, and see that he does not understand what is said, we say, Well, let us leave him, lest we trouble him. But some say, that our Lord said, It is enough, ironically; as if He said, Since there are two swords, they will amply suffice against so large a multitude as is about to attack us.

BEDE; Or the two swords suffice for a testimony that Jesus suffered voluntarily. The one indeed was to teach the Apostles the presumption of their contending for their Lord, and His inherent virtue of healing; the other never taken out of its sheath, to show that they were not even permitted to do all that they could for His defense.

AMBROSE; Or, because the law does not forbid to return a blow, perhaps He says to Peter, as he is offering the two swords, It is enough, as though it were lawful until the Gospel; in order that there may be in the law, the knowledge of Justice; in the Gospel, perfection of goodness. There is also a spiritual sword, that you may sell your patrimony, and buy the word, by which the nakedness of the soul is clothed. There is also a sword of suffering, so that you may strip your body, and with the spoils of your sacrificed flesh purchase for yourself the sacred crown of martyrdom. Again it moves, seeing that the disciples put forward two swords, whether perhaps one is not of the Old Testament, the other of the New, whereby we are armed against the wiles of the devil. Therefore the Lord says, It is enough, because he wanted nothing who is fortified by the teaching of both Testaments.**

 

[ParkerD]

I understand that God gives us experiences through the Holy Spirit.

However, the Bible tells us how to discern them. How do we discern them in Mormonism?

FabiusMaximus,
Here is your answer including Biblical sources that would be well to look up and think about:

The sequence of being able to receive a witness from the Holy Spirit regarding the Book of Mormon and thus whether Joseph Smith was a prophet called by God who continued to receive guidance from God through the Holy Spirit, so that God who is in charge could reveal His will (1 Corinthians 2:10,11) and not have men do whatever they wanted and say they “had the Spirit”, is that (1) one would be obliged to read the Book of Mormon honestly and sincerely with no preconceived answer in their mind and heart, (2) have love for all men including people of long ago all over the world (3) and including the House of Israel long ago, (4) have love for the Bible as a true record about God’s dealings with humankind and (5) God’s covenant promises to humankind, (6) have faith in Christ and His atonement, (7) have humility and (8) patience and (9) a desire to really do what God wants one to do and (10) be willing to do it even if it means “leaving father and mother” or “brothers and sisters” or “friends”, then with all that in place–(11) pray about what one has read whether it is from God.

(1) Isaiah 29:18; Ezekiel 37:18,19; Matthew 7:7, 8

(2) 1 John 2:5, 6; 1 John 4:18-21; Matthew 5:43-46

(3) Hosea 14:4-7; Isaiah 11:12, 13; Isaiah 55:5, 12

(4) John 5:39

(5) Jeremiah 31:6-10, 28; Jeremiah 32:37-42

(6) Revelation 22:12-17; Isaiah 53:4, 5; Isaiah 54:7, 8

(7) Isaiah 57:15

(8) Hebrews 12:1; 1 Corinthians 13:7; James 1:3, 4

(9) 1 John 5:14; Hebrews 10:36; Matthew 7:21

(10) Luke 9:61, 62; Matthew 10:37

(11) James 1:5, 6

Having read all those verses, if you will read 1 Corinthians 2 and Luke 24:32 you will understand how to discern the Holy Spirit guiding to truth and testifying of truth, including answering sincere prayers that include sincere probing questions from the heart.

 

[zerinus]

Obviously the other Smith-derived Restorationist groups, like the CC(RLDS), disagree.

Except that we have something to show for it which they don’t. The LDS Church has grown to become a dynamic, progressive, fast growing church, becoming more and more influential in the world; while the rest of them are floundering and losing membership and influence.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Thank you Theosis, that is correct. You are turning out to be good Mormon theologian! As I had mentioned in my earlier discussions with you, there are passages in the Bible that teach that Jesus was created and had a beginning (Colossians 1:15; Revelations 3:14); while others which appear to teach the opposite. So there is an apparent contradiction in the Bible, as there is also in LDS scripture.

Huh?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17)

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.” (Revelations 3:14)

These only say what you think inside your own mind, but these scriptures suggest nothing of the sort.

Where is the implication that Jesus was “created”? You’re just searching for possible scriptures that might help you. But it doesn’t work.

Now where also does it imply that in Genesis 1:1 there existed anything prior to the Earth’s creation?

 

[zerinus]

Huh?

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17)

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.” (Revelations 3:14)

These only say what you think inside your own mind, but these scriptures suggest nothing of the sort.

Where is the implication that Jesus was “created”? You’re just searching for possible scriptures that might help you. But it doesn’t work.

Now where also does it imply that in Genesis 1:1 there existed anything prior to the Earth’s creation?

I don’t know what edition of the Bible you are reading, but my KJV Rev. 3:14 Reads: “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;” and the majority of translations (including modern ones) agree with that:

New International Version (©1984)
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen–the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s new creation:

English Standard Version (©2001)
“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:

International Standard Version (©2008)
"To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God’s creation, says this:

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: The amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God’s creation, says:

King James Bible
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

American King James Version
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things said the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

American Standard Version
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

Bible in Basic English
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God’s new order:

Douay-Rheims Bible
And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

Darby Bible Translation
And to the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

English Revised Version
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

Webster’s Bible Translation
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Weymouth New Testament
"And to the minister of the Church at Laodicea write as follows: "'This is what the Amen says–the true and faithful witness, the Beginning and Lord of God’s Creation.

World English Bible
"To the angel of the assembly in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Head of God’s creation, says these things:

Young’s Literal Translation
'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness – the faithful and true – the chief of the creation of God;