Responding to a Mormon

[Janderich]

Okay, “but the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ,
might be given to them that believe. But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up,
unto that faith which was to be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster in Christ, that we
might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
(Galatians 3:22-25)

Besides, the neither the Nephites or the Lamanites kept the Law of Moses any-
way. The Old Testament is littered with examples of Mosaic practice, but never
in Ancient America was this done by any group of people. Joseph knew nothing
about the Law of Moses, so the Book of Mormon in turn also knew nothing.

Of course they did… the 10 commandments, animal sacrifices, temples. It’s all in the BofM.

 

[Janderich]

The OT people did not know of Jesus. The Law was intended to make God’s chosen people righteous before God. The Law prefigures Jesus and Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. We are made righteous in him, with him and through him.

I think we will end up disagreeing on this point. Christ of the New Testament is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Moreover, there are many prophets in the Old Testament who prophesied of Christ’s coming so they clearly knew his future role as Savior and Redeemer.

RebeccaJ:

I don’t agree that God made a dead covenant.

To make a covenant requires two parties. Acts without personal commitment is no covenant at all. People make the covenant dead not God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

but never
in Ancient America was this done by any group of people.

Of course they did… the 10 commandments, animal sacrifices, temples. It’s all in the BofM.

Dear Janderich, there are no pre-Columbian people in the Americas who practiced any OT Laws. The temples of Mexico, Central and South America were used to worship pagan gods and offer human sacrifice to those gods.

If you have archaeological or anthropological evidence that indicates pre-Columbian observant Jews, it would be interesting to see it.

The Book,of Mormon imitates Jewish practice in the story, but is lacking a Jewish context.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Of course they did… the 10 commandments, animal sacrifices, temples. It’s all in the BofM.

Give me a few instances of sacrifice.

Also, what Mormon’s don’t seem to get is that there is only One God, THEREFORE only
ONE Temple (notice how you used the plural form). It is made clear that God chose ONE
and ONLY one spot in Israel.
Deuteronomy 12:5-18, 26-27; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2-7, 15-16; 26:2

 

[Janderich]

Give me a few instances of sacrifice.

Also, what Mormon’s don’t seem to get is that there is only One God, THEREFORE only
ONE Temple (notice how you used the plural form). It is made clear that God chose ONE
and ONLY one spot in Israel.
Deuteronomy 12:5-18, 26-27; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2-7, 15-16; 26:2

I’m on a tablet so I’ll just post refrences to a few scriptures regarding sacrifice and the law of moses.

Alma 15:17
1 Ne 2:7
Mos 2:3
3 Ne 9:19

 

[iepuras]

I’m on a tablet so I’ll just post refrences to a few scriptures regarding sacrifice and the law of moses.

Alma 15:17
1 Ne 2:7
Mos 2:3
3 Ne 9:19

The only verse you mentioned above where someone actually offers a sacrifice is 1 Ne 2:7, but this sacrifice was offered by Lehi in the wilderness before Nephi ever built the ship to travel to the promised land. So it wasn’t even performed in the “promised land”. Also, it would have been an invalid sacrifice because Lehi was never a Levite or priest. If I remember right, Lehi was from the tribe of Manasseh so he was not authorized to perform sacrifices.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’m on a tablet so I’ll just post refrences to a few scriptures regarding sacrifice and the law of moses.

Alma 15:17
1 Ne 2:7 Mos 2:3
3 Ne 9:19

CAUGHT YA! And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that
they might offer sacrifice ***and burnt ***offerings accord–
ing to the law of Moses;
– (Mosiah 2:3)
NEVER EVER do you offer the firstborn from your flocks to God as a “burnt offering”!
They were sacrificed, blood sprinkled on the altar, the fat was *burned *(NOT the same
thing, duh!), and the rest was given to the family to eat.

MORMON BLUNDER!

 

[zaffiroborant]

The law always pointed to Christ. The whole intent of the law of Moses was to bring people to Christ. However the performances of the law, even when they were first given, were dead.

Sounds like God gave Israel a snake instead of a fish.

 

[Janderich]

CAUGHT YA! And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that
they might offer sacrifice ***and burnt ***offerings accord–
ing to the law of Moses;
– (Mosiah 2:3)
NEVER EVER do you offer the firstborn from your flocks to God as a “burnt offering”!
They were sacrificed, blood sprinkled on the altar, the fat was *burned *(NOT the same
thing, duh!), and the rest was given to the family to eat.

Please provide references.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Please provide references.

           "According to the law of Moses the **firstlings**           of their flocks were **never** offered as **burnt           offerings** or **sacrifices**. All **firstlings**           belonged to the Lord, *de jure*, and could not be counted           as a man's personal property — whereas, all burnt offerings, or           sacrifices for sin of every kind, must be selected from the man's own           personal property, or be purchased with his own money for that           purpose, while all **firstlings** of the flock, as the           Lord's property, came into the hands of the high priest, and by him           could be offered up as a **peace offering**, not as a **burnt**           offering or a sin **offering**, himself and family eating           the flesh. (See Ex. 13:2, 12 and 22:29, 30; Numb. 3:13; 2d Sam. 24:24;           Numb. 18:15-18 and other places.)
           "This one little blunder, then, proves           beyond the chance of question that the Book of Mormon could not have           been inspired by the Holy Spirit or by an angel of the Lord. This           passage is precisely such a passage as Joseph Smith or any other           ignorant man like him might have written; it could not have been found           in the book if God, or any angel of the Lord, had had to do with its           preparation." (*The           Golden Bible*, pages 109-110)

It’s a fact that the Jews NEVER offered up the firstling as a burnt sacrifice.
I recommend you also look up on this. Joseph Smith knew nothing about
Ancient Judaism, so it is of no surprise that he left out the many forms of
sacrifice and other things related to Judaism at the time.

 

[Janderich]

"According to the law of Moses the firstlings of their flocks were never offered as burnt offerings or sacrifices. All firstlings belonged to the Lord, de jure, and could not be counted as a man’s personal property — whereas, all burnt offerings, or sacrifices for sin of every kind, must be selected from the man’s own personal property, or be purchased with his own money for that purpose, while all firstlings of the flock, as the Lord’s property, came into the hands of the high priest, and by him could be offered up as a peace offering, not as a burnt offering or a sin offering, himself and family eating the flesh. (See Ex. 13:2, 12 and 22:29, 30; Numb. 3:13; 2d Sam. 24:24; Numb. 18:15-18 and other places.)
“This one little blunder, then, proves beyond the chance of question that the Book of Mormon could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit or by an angel of the Lord. This passage is precisely such a passage as Joseph Smith or any other ignorant man like him might have written; it could not have been found in the book if God, or any angel of the Lord, had had to do with its preparation.” (The Golden Bible, pages 109-110)

It’s a fact that the Jews NEVER offered up the firstling as a burnt sacrifice.
I recommend you also look up on this. Joseph Smith knew nothing about
Ancient Judaism, so it is of no surprise that he left out the many forms of
sacrifice and other things related to Judaism at the time.

CAUGHT YA! And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that
they might offer sacrifice ***and burnt ***offerings accord–
ing to the law of Moses;
– (Mosiah 2:3)
NEVER EVER do you offer the firstborn from your flocks to God as a “burnt offering”!
They were sacrificed, blood sprinkled on the altar, the fat was *burned *(NOT the same
thing, duh!), and the rest was given to the family to eat.

Despite your big words (literally) I’m afraid your argument holds little weight.

It is true that firstlings (the first lambs or calves born to their mothers) were not used for the normal burnt offering. However it is a mistake to think that they were not sacrificed at all. Under Mosaic law as given in Exodus 13:12 and 15 the firstborn of flocks and herds were dedicated to the Lord and were to be given to the Levites for their use. Other Israelites were forbidden to use them for work or economic gain (see Deuteronomy 15:19—20). On appointed occasions, the people were to take those firstlings to the temple where they would be slain as sacrifices. Deuteronomy 12:5—6 commanded that to the designated sacrificial altar “ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks.” Their blood was to be sprinkled on the altar and their fat burned (see Deuteronomy 18:17—18). What was left of the meat then was given to the individual making the offering for him and his family to eat in a specified place (see Deuteronomy 15:19—20). Thus we see that the statement in the book of Mosiah that firstling animals were brought to the temple in Zarahemla and sacrificed is not contrary to the commandments given to Moses.en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Biblical/Firstling_sacrifices

Further, you say that “the rest was given to the family to eat” this is also incorrect. Burnt offerings were completely consumed except for the skin which was given to the priests.

Deut 33:10 - They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
Lev 7:8 - And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.

Now, after this huge side trip, my point still stands. We worship God the Father and follow the Son. The Son likewise worshiped the Father and worked out his own salvation proceeding from grace to grace until he accomplished his work. Because of the atonement of Christ we also may follow his example imperfectly proceeding likewise from grace to grace.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Despite your big words (literally) I’m afraid your argument holds little weight.

What big words?

Further, you say that “the rest was given to the family to eat” this is also incorrect. Burnt offerings were completely consumed except for the skin which was given to the priests.

Deut 33:10 - They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law; they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
Lev 7:8 - And the priest that offereth any man’s burnt offering even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.

Now, after this huge side trip, my point still stands. We worship God the Father and follow the Son. The Son likewise worshiped the Father and worked out his own salvation proceeding from grace to grace until he accomplished his work. Because of the atonement of Christ we also may follow his example imperfectly proceeding likewise from grace to grace.

Neither Deuteronomy 33:10 nor Leviticus 7:8 exactly address the point I made.
Neither of them are talking about the first lings of the flocks being given to God
as burnt offerings. So still, the Mormon characters didn’t follow any of the Laws
of Moses. The verses you gave are not relevant to the issue at hand.

The Son worshiped the Father, yes, but he needed not to work our his own
salvation, because Jesus is God, the same God as the Father (no to men-
tion the Holy Spirit), and he was born sinless. The Savior needs no Savior.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now, after this huge side trip, my point still stands. We worship God the Father and follow the Son. The Son likewise worshiped the Father and worked out his own salvation proceeding from grace to grace until he accomplished his work. Because of the atonement of Christ we also may follow his example imperfectly proceeding likewise from grace to grace.

What does God need to be saved from?

God does not need to be saved. Jesus is God. There is a HUGE divergence here from Christianity by the Mormon religion, making the God Mormons worship not the Father or Jesus, but something other.

The Incarnation, the very event we celebrate now at Christmas, is when God became Man. Not the other way around, as Mormonism teaches, of man becoming God.

 

[iepuras]

What big words?

Neither Deuteronomy 33:10 nor Leviticus 7:8 exactly address the point I made.
Neither of them are talking about the first lings of the flocks being given to God
as burnt offerings. So still, the Mormon characters didn’t follow any of the Laws
of Moses. The verses you gave are not relevant to the issue at hand.

The Son worshiped the Father, yes, but he needed not to work our his own
salvation, because Jesus is God, the same God as the Father (no to men-
tion the Holy Spirit), and he was born sinless. The Savior needs no Savior.

The Mormon characters also didn’t even have the authority to offer sacrifices under the Law of Moses. God forgot to tell Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem for a Levite.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Janderich, do you believe that when Jesus died on the Cross He was saving Himself? If so, from what?

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Mormon characters also didn’t even have the authority to offer sacrifices under the Law of Moses. God forgot to tell Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem for a Levite.

They were too busy lopping of the head of Laban and stealing his stuff.

 

[iepuras]

They were too busy lopping of the head of Laban and stealing his stuff.

Then kidnapping certainly wouldn’t have been beneath them!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Then kidnapping certainly wouldn’t have been beneath them!

 

[batman1973]

"According to the law of Moses the firstlings of their flocks were never offered as burnt offerings or sacrifices. All firstlings belonged to the Lord, de jure, and could not be counted as a man’s personal property — whereas, all burnt offerings, or sacrifices for sin of every kind, must be selected from the man’s own personal property, or be purchased with his own money for that purpose, while all firstlings of the flock, as the Lord’s property, came into the hands of the high priest, and by him could be offered up as a peace offering, not as a burnt offering or a sin offering, himself and family eating the flesh. (See Ex. 13:2, 12 and 22:29, 30; Numb. 3:13; 2d Sam. 24:24; Numb. 18:15-18 and other places.)
“This one little blunder, then, proves beyond the chance of question that the Book of Mormon could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit or by an angel of the Lord. This passage is precisely such a passage as Joseph Smith or any other ignorant man like him might have written; it could not have been found in the book if God, or any angel of the Lord, had had to do with its preparation.” (The Golden Bible, pages 109-110)

It’s a fact that the Jews NEVER offered up the firstling as a burnt sacrifice.
I recommend you also look up on this. Joseph Smith knew nothing about
Ancient Judaism, so it is of no surprise that he left out the many forms of
sacrifice and other things related to Judaism at the time.

IMHO, Joseph was able to get away with it, since most understandings of Egyptology and Jewish practices and traditions were relatively unknown outside of academia. Unlike the information age of today, it was harder for someone to call shenanigans on Joe, although there were people on to his scams. If Joseph Smith were alive today, and tried his nonsense, he’d be quickly exposed as a fraud and laughed off.

 

[SteveVH]

If it came across that way, I humbly apologize. Even though I have many issues with the Roman Catholic Church doctrine, The Roman Catholic Church teaches at it’s core, the absolute truth of who the Trinity is and Real Presence. None of the Mormon churches do, hence why if given a choice, I would be Roman Catholic before rejoining any of the Latter Day Saint churches (And I belonged to 4 different groups)

I was just giggn’ ya.