Questions about "the book of mormon is wrong" article from this website

[Lemuel]

I know I’m a little crusty and not always charitable to the Mormons like I should be. I know I need to work on that. Almost 60 years of eternal nightmares have been replaced by the sweetness of the true gospel of Christ and for that I should be grateful. I was baptized just over a year ago and it’s been the best year of my life.

I hope y’all will say a prayer for this crusty old grouchy old sinner who wants to do better.

 

[OKComputer]

Mormons are great people but it’s nothing more than a social club. Being kicked out is no big deal

 

[TOmNossor]

I8jacob:

If any of you have any questions about my church please ask.

What was the great apostasy and when did it happen?

Lemuel,
I get very confused about your background as you have claimed many things, but one of the consistent things is that you are are a former LDS and knew/know great deals about it.
Anyway, there are many answers and I know you asked @I8jacob, but I can explore this with you if you like.

I find one of the BEST is that LDS believe that God has church leaders who receive public revelation and can write scriptures. This was true for the Old Testament Prophets, it was true for New Testament Apostles and it is true (from a LDS perspective) for Restoration Testament Apostles.
The Early Church expected revelation to continue, but in response to folks who claimed to receive revelation that the most powerful Christian leaders rejected, the teaching became: there is no public revelation, we Bishops do not receive it and you other folks do not either.
Brilliant Christian writer Tertullian witnesses that he fully expected revelation to continue all the way into the 3rd century. He died out of communion with “the church” but due to his brilliance we still have his writings.
After Tertullian there is little compelling evidence that the mainstream part of Christianity believed in continued public revelation. Catholicism rejects it today for the most part and absolutely rejects the idea that anyone can write scripture.

If LDS are right and God’s leaders (like Old Testament Prophets and New Testament Apostles) can receive revelation and write scripture; then the Catholic Church CANNOT possess the fullness of the gospel because after Tertullian this is rejected.

You might argue that you believe that delivering public revelation and writing scriptures must happen within 10 years from the current date and thus the CoJCoLDS is not God’s church, but then neither is the Catholic Church. I merely argue that a church must be OPEN to God’s revelation, willing to write scripture if so inspired, and if it is not it is not the FULLNESS of God’s Church. Thus the need for a restoration.
Charity, TOm

 

[Mi_Rose]

Mormon missionaries asked my husband and me to read the book of mormon with an open heart. We did and were not impressed.
It isn’t even good fiction but I still don’t have an answer as to why a woman would want to go to Mormon heaven.

 

[TOmNossor]

“Tell the Mormon missionaries: “Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.””
That is the last paragraph from the article what wrong with the book of Mormon.
I guess one of my questions is do you guys really think that the book of Mormon is on the same level as adultery? And if so why?

I produced responses to the Catholic Answers documents a long time ago. I even suggested to them that there were enough problems they should take them down.
It is my position that those articles like MUCH of what you hear here are “boundary maintenance.” The CoJCoLDS is so ridiculous you simply must not consider it. The Book of Mormon is so problematic you must not seek God’s will concerning it.
I actually think that committed Catholics who KNOW the Eucharist feeds their soul with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ do not need to investigate every non-Catholic faith and the CoJCoLDS is in that group. On the other hand, those who are looking should not cease to look because “adieu” is not an English word.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I8jacob:

I guess one of my questions is do you guys really think that the book of Mormon is on the same level as adultery? And if so why?

That passage does not equate the BoM to adultery. It says it’s wrong to pray for something to be God’s will when you know it’s the opposite, and I do believe that Mormonism is false and not God’s will.

Joseph Smith apparently could do something that God couldn’t: create a Church that could withstand the gates of Hell. Morminism believes my Church was corrupted and God abandoned it. Somehow God is unafraid of sin and can forgive, except He can’t forgive the Catholic Church. God is loving, but abandoned His people for 1500 years. I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church was beyond the pale and can’t be redeemed but somehow Mormonism is unblemished and will presumably never fall. If God can abandon one Church, there’s nothing keeping Him from doing it again. Really it’s only a matter of time by that logic.

I am not sure if you are interested enough in this question to follow this link, but it used to bother me a little that as a LDS I was taught this was the LAST dispensation and unlike all the previous dispensations it would not end before the second coming of Christ. I know enough of the history that it is clear two things are taught in almost ANY time in history. 1. Christ will return in our lifetime, 2. We have staying power (I sometimes think Catholic posters if they were Ciaphus cousins would reject St. Peter with the same certainty they reject Joseph Smith).
Anyway, this article uses a section in the Book of Mormon and a few different scholarly perspectives to form an argument about today that enables the church to continue without tipping (my word) out of existence. It is complex, but I am no longer much troubled by the idea that this is the “last dispensation.”
https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Charity, TOm

 

[OKComputer]

Chlorform in print.

 

[TOmNossor]

I8jacob:

If I am not stepping over any boundaries, were you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

I used to be a Mormon.

So, I was wrong about saying that all the priesthood was taken from the earth.

From the Mormon Church’s own website: The Great Apostasy

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth.

So what are you saying? Not all of the priesthood was taken from the earth? Only some of it? Is that like being sort of pregnant?

Either the priesthood was taken from the earth or it wasn’t. Which is it?

If you are correct and the priesthood was not taken from the earth, then there would be no need of a restoration of the priesthood, because you can’t restore something that is already there.

So again, I ask, which is it? Was the priesthood taken from the earth or was it not?

The ability to receive public revelation and write scripture was taken from the earth. It was restored to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
A Catholic may argue that “public revelation was complete in Christ” thus no need for more public revelation or scriptures. I do not think this is a good argument.
A Catholic may argue that whatever force protects the Catholic Church from error is ultimately public revelation, but this is DIFFERENT than what the Old Testament Prophets possessed and what the New Testament Apostles possessed.

While the presence and absence of priesthood is a little hard to define, it is clear that the PUBLIC ministry present within St. Peter did not continue with St. John or the three Nephites.
This public ministry did not continue with the Bishops or with the Bishop or Rome in the same way.
This public ministry according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I8jacob:

Nor do we believe that Joseph Smith is perfect. Nobody who ever walked this earth is or was perfect except for Jesus Christ.

I didn’t say you believe Joseph Smith was perfect. I said he managed to accomplish something that Christ, who is perfect, apparently couldn’t. What sense does that make?

Joseph Smith had a group of folks positively effected by centuries of Christianity (thank you Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism).
Also, Joseph Smith’s positive accomplishment are all a product of his working WITH CHRIST.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

“Tell the Mormon missionaries: “Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God.””
That is the last paragraph from the article what wrong with the book of Mormon.
I guess one of my questions is do you guys really think that the book of Mormon is on the same level as adultery? And if so why?

We learn about the Creator from his creation, through science or natural law. It makes no sense to use prayer to learn about science. You would not pray to find out when there will be a full moon. Science has proven the Book of Mormon not to be what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, so there is no reason to pray about it.

 

[Wesrock]

The celebration of mass on Sundays takes 45 to 75 minutes, on average, depending upon how long the priest’s homily (like a sermon) is and other factors. Certain masses, like the Easter Vigil, can take a few hours.

 

[TOmNossor]

I8jacob:

Not only that, but we do work for the dead in our temples.

That’s a very innocuous way to put it. You baptize them, regardless of whether they would have consented to it in life, a practice with no precedence in the Bible nor Sacred Tradition. If they won’t be Mormon in this life, then all you have to do is wait until they die so they can be baptized by proxy. Why was it that the rich man in Luke 16 didn’t ask for Lazarus to have him baptized if that was all that was keeping him from paradise?

The Bible speaks of Baptism for the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Catholic writers have written about MANY things this MIGHT mean. One as I recall is very close to what LDS believe in that these “baptisms” are vicarious actions (not strictly baptisms) that impact the post mortal lives of those for whom they are performed. When one gives alms for those in Purgatory for example.

Vicarious ordinances are freely RECEIVED in LDS teaching. So no baptism for the dead FORCES anyone to enter Christ’s kingdom who chooses to reject such an act.

Recently dozens of Catholics who never knew my mother prayed for her at a mass held almost a year after her death. She didn’t ask for this. It is clear that some of her classmates had this happen for them despite their departure from the Catholic Church. I find this to be good people doing loving things, but it would seem that you would have a different opinion?

If they won’t be Mormon in this life, then all you have to do is wait until they die so they can be baptized by proxy.

This talk addresses this sentiment. It is very similar to a not uncommon criticism of Christianity, “if God desires to forgive sins, why do we not live it up and then seek forgiveness, win win.”

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/now-is-the-time-to-prepare?lang=eng

Why was it that the rich man in Luke 16 didn’t ask for Lazarus to have him baptized if that was all that was keeping him from paradise?

You may have forgotten your Bible or you might not understand LDS practice. Lazarus could not perform vicarious baptisms because he was dead. Vicarious baptisms are performed by living saints, not the dead.

And I think part of the answer would again be from the linked talk. Alma 40:14 says:

Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Hope that helps.

Charity, TOm

 

[Diaconia]

Jesus gave the power to bind and lose, the power of the keys, to Peter.

That power has been passed, in unbroken authority, to Francis today. The only true Church was built, by Christ, with Peter as its head.

Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and they never have, there was no Great Apostasy, thus Mormonism is false.

Jesus said of John the Baptist, he is the last and greatest of the prophets. John pointed out Jesus as the Lamb of God, completing for all time the work of the prophets. Jesus said John was the last prophet, thus Mormonism is false.

The Trinity is the first basic test of Christianity. Mormonism believes that our Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct gods, and that Heavenly Father was once a man who progressed to godhood. Mormonism is not Trinitarian, but rather polytheistic, thus Mormonism is false.

I could go on and on, but that’s enough for this Easter Day, when our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, rose from the dead to conquer sin.

Deacon Christopher

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Mormonism's Baptism for the Dead | Catholic Answers Tract

Praying for lost souls in purgatory is a completely different practice then vicariously, without consent or any indication of consent, performing a baptism for a deceased family member.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

No one is forgetting the Bible here. If one wants to simply pull out a verse, and try to use that to justify a position we could argue for hours. However, as Catholics we have the Traditions, the Teachings and the church was given the authority to govern over how to “interpret” biblical passages so we don’t have to do that on our own or rely on the “prophecy of one man”.

 

[Stephen168]

… I was just a little confused on the article on why the Book of Mormon is wrong. If any of you have any questions about my church please ask. I was hoping for a good conversation about that article so that I can better understand ya’ll of other faiths.

I don’t understand how asking you questions about Mormonism would clear up your confusion about why someone else believes the Book of Mormon is wrong. Or how it would help you understand Catholicism. I do see you later asked questions about the article and Catholicism which makes more sense.

The article rightly points out that Mormons tell us that praying about the Book of Mormon and having a good feeling about the Book of Mormon will prove it is “true.” This is irrational. Feelings are not proof of something that can be proved or disproved objectively. Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church, until recently, claimed the Book of Mormon was a history book about all the American Indians. Feelings will not tell us whether this is true or not; science will.

The article gives us the foundational claim of Mormonism. The Church founded by Jesus Christ suffered a ‘Great Apostasy’ which removed all authority from the earth and Joseph Smith restored that authority. The problems with this claim is that it isn’t Biblical, and it isn’t historical. Joseph Smith claimed the Great Apostasy occurred in 570AD. This would mean all the unique teachings of Mormonism would be found in the writings of the early Church, and the first five ecumenical councils. But Mormonism rejects many of the teachings of the early Church, and none of its unique teaches are found there.

The article continues with reasons why the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be; an ancient historical account of all the American Indians. An account of how Jews travel to the Americas and populated it with great civilizations which ended in a great battle dated 421AD. The Mormon Church claims it is a historical account from 2200BC to 421AD. Except there is no evidence that any of this, including the great battle took place. In other words there is no evidence to support the claim of Joseph Smith.

The article continues with evidence against the Book of Mormon; evidence which proves it cannot be an ancient document containing a history of the American Indians. The evidence is:

The Book of Mormon contains exact quotes from the King James Bible including the translation errors.

The Book of Mormon seems to be anti-Mormon because the unique teachings of Mormonism are not found in it and in some places refutes Mormon teaching.

The Book of Mormon prophesies that Christ will be born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem.

The Book of Mormon talks about honey bees which were introduced to the Americas by Spanish explorers.

The article only scratched the surface on the body of evidence against the claims of Joseph Smith and the Latter-Day-Saint movement.

Because we know, based on the science, that Joseph Smith’s claim is false, there is no reason to pray about it, and any ‘good feelings’ you might receive are no indication that it is true.

 

[TOmNossor]

Praying for lost souls in purgatory is a completely different practice then vicariously, without consent or any indication of consent, performing a baptism for a deceased family member.

It is St. Francis De Salas that you are arguing against here not me. I merely said there are a lot of POSSIBLE explanations offered for this passage and one is:

One as I recall is very close to what LDS believe in that these “baptisms” are vicarious actions (not strictly baptisms) that impact the post mortal lives of those for whom they are performed. When one gives alms for those in Purgatory for example.

Your Catholic Answers document offers 4 categories, but neglects to comment on St. Francis’s 16th century interpretation (and as I said the number of POSSIBLE interpretations offered by Catholic thinkers is numerous – more than 2 dozen if I recall).

I think the Paul said, “they” apologetic is not a strong Biblical argument. Many Catholics have agreed. The idea that Paul would use the practice of a non-sanctioned group to argue for the validity of the resurrection is truly strange. Kind of like Athanasius arguing that Christ must be God because if He was not, He could not make us gods while Athanasius NEVER believes that men can become gods. Of course Paul and Athanasius do not use such silly arguments IMO. Paul spoke approvingly of Baptism for the Dead (and Athanasius spoke approvingly of deification).

Finally, the Catholic Answers document says “There is no other evidence in the Bible or in the early Church Fathers’ writings of baptism being practiced on the living in place of the dead.”

This is not accurate. At the Council of Corinth in the 5th century they condemned giving baptism to the bodies of the dead. It is VERY unlikely they are reaching back to something St. Paul about approvingly 3-4 centuries earlier.

LDS do not practice give baptism to the bodies of the dead and the vicarious baptism for the dead that LDS do practice is not done SOLELY because St. Paul speaks approvingly of it. Instead, LDS practice vicarious baptisms because God restored this ancient practice through Joseph Smith. The Biblical and ancient evidence (scant though it is) for this practice only lend credence to the argument that LDS are wrongly condemned for this practice by our detractors (you and Catholic Answers in this case). If as I state above the LDS argument that God’s earthly church leaders should be able to receive revelation and write scriptures is true, Catholicism cannot be true. Ultimately, this comes down to which authority is God’s authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

No one is forgetting the Bible here. If one wants to simply pull out a verse, and try to use that to justify a position we could argue for hours. However, as Catholics we have the Traditions, the Teachings and the church was given the authority to govern over how to “interpret” biblical passages so we don’t have to do that on our own or rely on the “prophecy of one man”.

You are correct that it is about authority. I have posted for years about problems with the idea that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter. There are many. The simple, “ability to receive Public Revelation and write scripture” is perhaps the most succinct one.

However, I was claiming that Fauken claiming that the Rich man should have asked Lazarus to baptize him for the dead meant that he didn’t remember his Bible or had no idea how baptism for the dead worked anciently or in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The passages in Luke makes it clear that Lazarus was dead when the rich man (who was also dead) asked for help. Baptism for the dead anciently and in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was performed by the LIVING for the dead.
Charity, TOm

 

[Todd_Easton]

The OP seems to be referring to the Catholic Answers tract, “Problems with the Book of Mormon.”"

 

[TOmNossor]

evidence against the Book of Mormon; evidence which proves it cannot be an ancient document containing a history of the American Indians

Disagree!

The Book of Mormon contains exact quotes from the King James Bible including the translation errors.

I think it is most likely that the Book of Mormon has a dependence on the KJB. As a 19th century “translation” of an ancient document that purportedly contained passages from the Bible, a normal translator would be well served by using Biblical translations available to him. However the KJV influenced the BOM, it is clear that Joseph Smith did not use the KJV of the Bible while dictating the text we have. There is zero evidence of this. So, based on the evidence either Joseph Smith memorized long sections of the KJB and dictated them OR the supernatural aid provided to him used a familiar translation that was sufficient for the task. It is many other aspects of the BOM that are far beyond the capabilities of Joseph Smith or any 19th century man that lead me to believe that the latter is true.

The Book of Mormon seems to be anti-Mormon because the unique teachings of Mormonism are not found in it and in some places refutes Mormon teaching.

The BOM is scripture not a theological treatise. The Bible seems to be anti-Catholic because the unique teaching of Catholicism are not found it and in some places refutes Catholic teaching, is equally true if not more so.

The Book of Mormon prophesies that Christ will be born in Jerusalem, not Bethlehem.

This criticism and criticism of the term “land of Jerusalem” was once something that required a response from BOM believers. This response has been convincingly provided such that the BOM text in this area is positive evidence that the BOM came from an ancient American culture rather than 19th Century America.
“Land of Jerusalem” is an ancient description.
“In Jerusalem” is what a culture who had ancient Jerusalem roots but was trying to explain to their group who were thousands of miles and hundreds of years removed from these roots. No 19th century American would make such a “mistake.”

The Book of Mormon talks about honey bees which were introduced to the Americas by Spanish explorers.

The BOM does not talk about honey bees in the Americas, only in the Old World where there were honey bees. This is just sloppy anti-Mormonism.

Because we know, based on the science, that Joseph Smith’s claim is false, there is no reason to pray about it, and any ‘good feelings’ you might receive are no indication that it is true.

I would suggest that if you believe praying to God for answers only results in “good feelings” then you are at odds with Christianity. I know that God does answer prayers. If I knew Catholicism was God’s Church, I would not pray about the BOM. But, the arguments provided in that document IMO are very poor and the conclusion to “not pray” is problematic.
Charity, TOm