Problems with the Book of Mormon

[BartBurk]

It is exactly the same thing. The creed that I recite at mass every Sunday is my belief. Saying that the creed is an abomination is saying that my beliefs are an abomination. And saying that “all those professors are corrupt” is saying that I, a professor of that creed, am corrupt.

I think you have never really considered what that statement from Joseph’s first vision really means. I think it’s time to post about that…

And perhaps you don’t know, but I served an LDS mission in the Taiwan Taipei Mission so I know exactly what the missionaries are trained to do. Where did you serve your mission?

When Joseph Smith was talking about the “professors” being corrupt, I’m pretty sure he was talking about the ministers of the sects of the day. Later on in his history he states:

I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects all united to persecute me. It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.

It is clear here that when he is talking about “professors” he is speaking of the “professors of religion”, the “men of high standing”, “the great ones of the most popular sects of the day.” I don’t think he was speaking of the mere members of the churches who professed the creeds, but the ministers who were teaching them. Small difference to be sure, but I think an important one for our discussion. When you consider that many of these men were men like Sidney Rigdon, Joseph’s estimation of them may not have been far off. And of course Joseph had almost no contact with Catholic priests – I’d be surprised if he had even talked to one.

 

[LDSGuy]

The thing about what Jesus Said and all that business, is that Jesus Always said what he meant, Meant what he said, and explained himself if it was a parable or metaphor.

Moron…i mean mormons are still of the devil and speak lies.

Read the links I offered to you and then maybe we, including your Catholic brothers and sisters, may take you more seriously. Calling someone a moron, or sexual deviants, “of the devil”, or making up lies (that have yet to be substantiated) about Witchcraft phrases on LDS temples are not valid arguments.

 

[PaulDupre]

PaulDupre,
I served in Los Angeles among many wonderful people of all denominations and from many countries of the world.

I have “abominable” beliefs, my friend, because I don’t yet know all I need to know and I act imperfectly. Any belief that leads me to do less than my best is “abominable” because it is imperfect. It needs to be refined, usually by experiences and by my being open to change. I love that process–I don’t shy away from it. That is called repentance. That is what the gospel of Jesus Christ offers us–the opportunity to learn what parts of our own belief system, whether learned by tradition, by teachings of others, or by our own concoction, are imperfect and need to be changed and refined.

Nice dodge, but you didn’t answer the question.

 

[PaulDupre]

When Joseph Smith was talking about the “professors” being corrupt, I’m pretty sure he was talking about the ministers of the sects of the day. Later on in his history he states:

It is clear here that when he is talking about “professors” he is speaking of the “professors of religion”, the “men of high standing”, “the great ones of the most popular sects of the day.” I don’t think he was speaking of the mere members of the churches who professed the creeds, but the ministers who were teaching them. Small difference to be sure, but I think an important one for our discussion. When you consider that many of these men were men like Sidney Rigdon, Joseph’s estimation of them may not have been far off. And of course Joseph had almost no contact with Catholic priests – I’d be surprised if he had even talked to one.

Professor meant the same thing then that it means now - “one who professes, esp. a religious belief”. If he had meant only ministers, he would have said so. Joseph implies that all religious people (all who professed those religions) turned against him, not only the leaders. Perhaps they were incited by “men of high standing”, but all who professed those creeds allegedly turned against him.

Even if I were to concede to your view, he would still be calling my beloved pastor, Father Nguyen, corrupt for professing the creed. I take great offense at that.

 

[Jerusha]

Moron…i mean mormons are still of the devil and speak lies.

You can’t catch flies with vinegar.

Take a hint from III Nephi 3

“Lachoneus, most noble and Chief Governor of the land, I praise you because of your firmness and the firmness of your people. You are firm in maintaining your right and liberty. You stand well in defense of your liberty, property, and country. It is as if you were supported by the hand of God.
It seems a pity to me that you are as foolish and vain as to think that you can stand against so many brave men.

Not that it helped in that situation, but it certainly was an effort worth emulating. The honeyed words of Mormons are sometimes, regrettably, effective.

 

[LDSGuy]

The Mormon Church has 50,000 young boys traveling the world claiming that God said:

Let’s examine this statement. Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines abomination as

The same dictionary defines professor as

The dictionary defines corrupt as

Here is the Nicene Creed, the most-often recited Christian Creed and the one I as a Catholic profess at mass every Sunday:

Now tell me, ParkerD, what part of my creed is filthy, hateful and disgusting?

What about this creed makes me, a professor of this creed, rotten, morally debased, perverted, evil and depraved?

God bless you,
Paul

I think those are all strong words that I personally wouldn’t use in defining other beliefs. As far as the Nicene Creed, there is much that we don’t agree with in it, and even if we used the same words, we might mean something different, as I’m sure you understand. For example, the very first statement, “We believe in one God”, yes LDS do too, but of course we have different definitions of what that oneness is. So from our perspective, we have continued the original beliefs of Christianity, and those of all other Christian faiths are inherently false because of this, though they may have some truths as well. We both believe we have the fullness of Truth, and all other churches have errors, some more than others.

 

[ParkerD]

PaulDupre,
From Noah Webster 1828 dictionary:

ABOMINA’TION, n.

1. Extreme hatred; detestation.
2. The object of detestation, a common signification in scripture.

The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov.xv.

1. Hence, defilement, pollution, in a physical sense, or evil doctrines and practices, which are moral defilements, idols and idolatry, are called abominations. The Jews were an abomination to the Egyptians; and the sacred animals of the Egyptians were an abomination to the Jews. The Roman army is called the abomination of desolation. Mat. 24:13.

Paul,
If there is any pollution whatsoever in the doctrine such that people are not being led in purity and truth, then it meets the definition above. “Corrupt” doctrine is impure doctrine. If you were told a pool of water was corrupt, would you drink from it? All that means is that it is impure, not that it is horrible.

I have nothing wrong with your creed as you posted it, other than the last paragraph. But it’s your belief, and you have every right to believe it as strongly as you wish.

 

[ParkerD]

Professor meant the same thing then that it means now - “one who professes, esp. a religious belief”. If he had meant only ministers, he would have said so. Joseph implies that all religious people (all who professed those religions) turned against him, not only the leaders. Perhaps they were incited by “men of high standing”, but all who professed those creeds allegedly turned against him.

Even if I were to concede to your view, he would still be calling my beloved pastor, Father Nguyen, corrupt for professing the creed. I take great offense at that.

Paul,
Again looking at the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary:

PROFESS’OR, n. [L.] One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics.

I think the context of what Joseph Smith wrote, and knowing that his whole intent in asking the questions he asked in prayer (which church should I join–which is true?) had to do with what was being taught within the churches whose meetings he attended, leads to the conclusion that the use of the word “professor” has to do with a “public teacher”.

As to your own minister, I think it’s great that you have great trust in such a person. But also see what I previously wrote. This life is for progress, not stagnation. If you grow and progress day to day and year to year, grow toward the light of Christ as your pope has asked you to do, then that is wonderful. We all need that. Joseph Smith was being taught, “God no longer speaks to mankind.” That was the abominable doctrine.

 

[PaulDupre]

Joseph Smith was being taught, “God no longer speaks to mankind.” That was the abominable doctrine.

The text does not convey that at all. You are reading that into the text.

And even if that were true, he wasn’t being taught that by Catholics, because Catholics don’t believe that, and neither do most non-Catholic Christians, though Mormons have been deceived into believing that they do.

The difference is that Mormons believe that God is revealing new doctrines that improve upon the doctrines taught by Jesus. Catholics believe that Jesus is the complete revelation of God and nothing more is needed. All we need is to seek to understand Jesus and His teachings and grow close to Him. When God speaks to mankind now, it is only to help us understand what has already been revealed in Christ, and not to reveal novel doctrines or reverse prior doctrines.

 

[PaulDupre]

As to your own minister, I think it’s great that you have great trust in such a person. But also see what I previously wrote. This life is for progress, not stagnation.

You think that because I love and respect my pastor and the selfless priests who serve with him in my parish, that I am “stagnant”? Where does that come from?

I assume you love and respect your prophet. Does that mean you are stagnant?

You have a weird, twisted view of non-Mormons. Most Mormons do.

 

[ParkerD]

PaulDupre,
If I have understood correctly, there was a fairly recent change in what is considered the status of infant children who died without baptism in the Catholic church–no longer are they condemned, correct?

What changed?

I have no problem with your having accomodated your beliefs with the statement that “nothing more is needed”, but I think it is self-deception. You can certainly choose that if you wish. You can also be offended by my pointing it out.

The ultimate questions are “is the doctrine pure?” “Is the claim of revelation or new teaching or a change in policy pure and absolutely revealed by God?” There wouldn’t be so much dissension within the Catholic church if these were not valid issues. I see it in the papers and on the internet all the time.

 

[ParkerD]

PaulDupre,
I served in Los Angeles among many wonderful people of all denominations and from many countries of the world.

I have “abominable” beliefs, my friend, because I don’t yet know all I need to know and I act imperfectly. Any belief that leads me to do less than my best is “abominable” because it is imperfect. It needs to be refined, usually by experiences and by my being open to change. I love that process–I don’t shy away from it. That is called repentance. That is what the gospel of Jesus Christ offers us–the opportunity to learn what parts of our own belief system, whether learned by tradition, by teachings of others, or by our own concoction, are imperfect and need to be changed and refined.

PaulDupre,
I didn’t say you were stagnant, nor your leaders. If you are growing day by day, that’s great. If you are learning more from the Bible year by year, that’s great. It is a book that offers growth “line upon line, precept upon precept.” Some of your responses have not shown that you are a complete follower of Christ, so I would think you may need some growth in your life. Nor am I perfect–I need growth in my life, and I relish it. I’m not offended by you at all. You asked a prayer in my behalf earlier. Thanks.

 

[why_me]

Here is the problem with the book of mormon. Why would these men lie and never deny what they had seen?

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

Oliver and David left the lds church. Oliver returned after being excommunicated and David left but never denied what he saw. Now that a problem with the book of mormon.

 

[why_me]

And here is the second problem with the book of mormon. We also have 8 witnesses who never denied their statement of what they saw:

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Now for sure that it is a problem since many left the fold. But none denied their statement or said that they lied.

 

[BartBurk]

PaulDupre,
If I have understood correctly, there was a fairly recent change in what is considered the status of infant children who died without baptism in the Catholic church–no longer are they condemned, correct?

What changed?

I have no problem with your having accomodated your beliefs with the statement that “nothing more is needed”, but I think it is self-deception. You can certainly choose that if you wish. You can also be offended by my pointing it out.

The ultimate questions are “is the doctrine pure?” “Is the claim of revelation or new teaching or a change in policy pure and absolutely revealed by God?” There wouldn’t be so much dissension within the Catholic church if these were not valid issues. I see it in the papers and on the internet all the time.

There was no change in status at all. Limbo was never a settled doctrine. People still have the right to believe in Limbo if they wish to believe in Limbo. They also have the right to believe that little children are in heaven. The Catholic Church takes no official position on the eternal status of any human being other than those who have been declared saints. The Catholic Church simply asks God to have mercy on all of us including little children who die without baptism. Here’s an article discussing this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

 

[BartBurk]

And here is the second problem with the book of mormon. We also have 8 witnesses who never denied their statement of what they saw:

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Now for sure that it is a problem since many left the fold. But none denied their statement or said that they lied.

To quote Mark Twain:

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but “hefted” them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

 

[ParkerD]

There was no change in status at all. Limbo was never a settled doctrine. People still have the right to believe in Limbo if they wish to believe in Limbo. They also have the right to believe that little children are in heaven. The Catholic Church takes no official position on the eternal status of any human being other than those who have been declared saints. The Catholic Church simply asks God to have mercy on all of us including little children who die without baptism. Here’s an article discussing this:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm

BartBurk,
Here is part of the citation you linked:

"The document traced the development of church thinking about the fate of unbaptized children, noting that there is “no explicit answer” from Scripture or tradition.

In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell. By the 13th century, theologians referred to the “limbo of infants” as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.

Through the centuries, popes and church councils were careful not to define limbo as a doctrine of the faith and to leave the question open. That was important in allowing an evolution of the teaching, the theological commission said."

This is a pretty good example of impure “doctrine” not well understood, needing “evolution.”

The LDS church has no qualms about teaching that there is no such thing as “original sin” and that infants and children under age 8 who die go to heaven, without equivocation or hesitation about the clear and pure doctrine.

 

[PaulDupre]

There wouldn’t be so much dissension within the Catholic church if these were not valid issues. I see it in the papers and on the internet all the time.

There is dissension within the Catholic Church because some Catholics will not humble themselves and obey the commandments.

They want to be Catholics and at the same time have homosexual relations, or ordain women, or have abortions, or practice artificial contraception, or deny the Real Presence, or any number of things.

Why is there so much dissension in the LDS Church?

 

[BartBurk]

Professor meant the same thing then that it means now - “one who professes, esp. a religious belief”. If he had meant only ministers, he would have said so. Joseph implies that all religious people (all who professed those religions) turned against him, not only the leaders. Perhaps they were incited by “men of high standing”, but all who professed those creeds allegedly turned against him.

Even if I were to concede to your view, he would still be calling my beloved pastor, Father Nguyen, corrupt for professing the creed. I take great offense at that.

I will give you that. I think Joseph Smith and his family were suspicious of the paid clergy. I find many Mormons even today whose biggest gripe about Christianity is that clergy get paid for their work. I also find it is one of the aspects of Mormonism that attracts non-Mormons. It’s only the higher ups that get paid for their work – the poor local stiffs spend tons of time providing service to the Mormon Church for free while the local money all gets sent to Church Headquarters in SLC to give the leaders there a comfortable living. And then these leaders never tell the church members how much money they are taking for their labors.

 

[BartBurk]

BartBurk,
Here is part of the citation you linked:

"The document traced the development of church thinking about the fate of unbaptized children, noting that there is “no explicit answer” from Scripture or tradition.

In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism were consigned to hell. By the 13th century, theologians referred to the “limbo of infants” as a place where unbaptized babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.

Through the centuries, popes and church councils were careful not to define limbo as a doctrine of the faith and to leave the question open. That was important in allowing an evolution of the teaching, the theological commission said."

This is a pretty good example of impure “doctrine” not well understood, needing “evolution.”

The LDS church has no qualms about teaching that there is no such thing as “original sin” and that infants and children under age 8 who die go to heaven, without equivocation or hesitation about the clear and pure doctrine.

The biggest problem is the LDS take this doctrine from the revelations of Joseph Smith which have been proven spurious (like the Book of Mormon for example). The Catholics don’t want to commit the sin of presumption with regards to God’s mercy. Catholics hope for God’s mercy, but they don’t presume it.