Tell me what you think of this chapter in the Book of Mormon

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry but this doesn’t jibe with the Holy Bible. In Acts we read that they were first called Christians in Antioch. We don’t even see the word Christian anywhere in the OT. Before Christ came in the flesh, believers did not place their faith in him. It was in Yahweh, Israel’s God.
…

Yankee Drifter,
You’re correct that the words “called Christians first at Antioch” are used in Acts 11:26. That was talking about the disciples or followers of Jesus Christ living in that part of the world. Those words, again, are a translation, as you know. The word “Christian” is a word that has its origin in a Greek word meaning “adhering to a belief in the Anointed One”.

The Book of Mormon relates the teaching and understanding that God gives revealed knowledge based on the amount of faith a person seeking knowledge and wisdom from God has. The angels who appeared to Nephite prophets did so by assignment from God, and Jesus Christ appeared to a prophet (the brother of Jared) and said what His name would be on earth, and those events happened because of the faith of the individuals who were prepared based on their faith to receive knowledge about the name of Jesus Christ, the Promised Messiah.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,
You’re correct that the words “called Christians first at Antioch” are used in Acts 11:26. That was talking about the disciples or followers of Jesus Christ living in that part of the world. Those words, again, are a translation, as you know. The word “Christian” is a word that has its origin in a Greek word meaning “adhering to a belief in the Anointed One”.

The Book of Mormon relates the teaching and understanding that God gives revealed knowledge based on the amount of faith a person seeking knowledge and wisdom from God has. The angels who appeared to Nephite prophets did so by assignment from God, and Jesus Christ appeared to a prophet (the brother of Jared) and said what His name would be on earth, and those events happened because of the faith of the individuals who were prepared based on their faith to receive knowledge about the name of Jesus Christ, the Promised Messiah.

God said all that is required to move a mountain is faith the size of a mustard seed. He also said we are to come to Christ with child like faith.

The OT prophets predicted the coming Messiah/Savior and yet no one was called a Christian until after Christ established His church.

 

[ParkerD]

God said all that is required to move a mountain is faith the size of a mustard seed. He also said we are to come to Christ with child like faith.

The OT prophets predicted the coming Messiah/Savior and yet no one was called a Christian until after Christ established His church.

Yankee Drifter,

I think if you will look carefully at the passage about the grain of mustard seed, the words the Savior used (as translated) are:

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

It is plausible to think the Savior was talking about the size of the grain of mustard seed, but it is also plausible (and I think makes more sense in the context) to realize that from one tiny grain of mustard seed was able to grow a very large plant if given proper care. So the words “faith as a grain of mustard seed” mean, to me,

“Faith that seems indeed very tiny by the world’s view of things, but the potential within that tiny outward appearance is incredible and immense.” “It is enough faith to move a mountain–which the world does not see because they are looking at the outward appearance rather than the inward potential and inward active belief.”

As to the term “Christian,” since there were people who really did believe in the “Anointed One” and that is the set of words which when translated from Greek mean “Christ”, those people who really believed in that concept could have been described as “Christians” and could have been called “Christians” and that would have simply been making one Greek word out of a meaning they already had among them.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,

I think if you will look carefully at the passage about the grain of mustard seed, the words the Savior used (as translated) are:

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

It is plausible to think the Savior was talking about the size of the grain of mustard seed, but it is also plausible (and I think makes more sense in the context) to realize that from one tiny grain of mustard seed was able to grow a very large plant if given proper care. So the words “faith as a grain of mustard seed” mean, to me,

“Faith that seems indeed very tiny by the world’s view of things, but the potential within that tiny outward appearance is incredible and immense.” “It is enough faith to move a mountain–which the world does not see because they are looking at the outward appearance rather than the inward potential and inward active belief.”

As to the term “Christian,” since there were people who really did believe in the “Anointed One” and that is the set of words which when translated from Greek mean “Christ”, those people who really believed in that concept could have been described as “Christians” and could have been called “Christians” and that would have simply been making one Greek word out of a meaning they already had among them.

The amount of faith has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge God imparts. If this were so then one would need enormous faith to understand the Scriptures.

On the contrary, the true christian needs the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to understand God’s Word. Our Savior was telling His disciples that they lacked faith and just a tiny faith alone can do the impossible.

 

[SteveVH]

Yankee Drifter,
The Book of Mormon relates the teaching and understanding that God gives revealed knowledge based on the amount of faith a person seeking knowledge and wisdom from God has. The angels who appeared to Nephite prophets did so by assignment from God, and Jesus Christ appeared to a prophet (the brother of Jared) and said what His name would be on earth, and those events happened because of the faith of the individuals who were prepared based on their faith to receive knowledge about the name of Jesus Christ, the Promised Messiah.

And isn’t this so typical? “You cannot understand because your faith is lacking. I, on the other hand, understand perfectly because of my great faith”. This is nothing more than gnosticism, secret knowledge, that one can neither prove nor disprove. This line of thought is pervasive in Mormonism. There is never anything solid, from the “Great Apostasy” to the civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon to the “burning in the heart”. It is always based upon shadows.

 

[ParkerD]

And isn’t this so typical? “You cannot understand because your faith is lacking. [The brother of Jared], on the other hand, [gained added knowledge ]because of [his] great faith”. This is nothing more than … the “burning in the heart”. It is always based upon shadows.

SteveVH,

No doubt most of the people who heard the following had similar responses and walked away shaking their heads:

Luke 2:17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

“Why them, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees would say.)

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

“Why him, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin would say.)

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

“Why them, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Sanhedrin and the people along their way as they journied would say.)

Luke 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, …?

No doubt as they told others about their lesson taught by experience that the “heart burns within us” when hearing truths of God, many of the listeners scoffed and said, “that is heresy. We know the scriptures. We don’t need a burning in the heart to know what is a truth from God.”

 

[yankee_drifter]

And isn’t this so typical? “You cannot understand because your faith is lacking. I, on the other hand, understand perfectly because of my great faith”. This is nothing more than gnosticism, secret knowledge, that one can neither prove nor disprove. This line of thought is pervasive in Mormonism. There is never anything solid, from the “Great Apostasy” to the civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon to the “burning in the heart”. It is always based upon shadows.

This is the pride that comes with believing that one belongs to the One True Church.

Jesus never said great faith was needed, but childlike faith, trust and humility.

 

[yankee_drifter]

ParkerD.

Not only does the BoM get it wrong that believers were called Christians, when the Holy Bible was here long before the BoM and the Bible says they were first called Christians in Antioch. But the BoM even gets the birthplace of Christ wrong, saying He was born in Jerusalem.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD.

Not only does the BoM get it wrong that believers were called Christians, when the Holy Bible was here long before the BoM and the Bible says they were first called Christians in Antioch. But the BoM even gets the birthplace of Christ wrong, saying He was born in Jerusalem.

Yankee Drifter,

Good point, but you got it a tiny bit wrong. The passage says,

(Alma 7: 10)
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

You may think “in Jerusalem” means the same thing as “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”, but since Jerusalem was both a “land” (or an area of land) and a “city” (within the famous walls of Jerusalem), the distinction seems to be pretty significant.

That passage ought to show to any thoughtful reader that Joseph Smith and whomever is believed to be his “ghost writer of the Book of Mormon” would not have gotten such a simple thing wrong if they were making the book up. It’s like, “duh!”

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

No doubt most of the people who heard the following had similar responses and walked away shaking their heads:

Luke 2:17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

“Why them, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees would say.)

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

“Why him, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin would say.)

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

“Why them, and not us?!” (The crowds and the Sanhedrin and the people along their way as they journied would say.)

Luke 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, …?

No doubt as they told others about their lesson taught by experience that the “heart burns within us” when hearing truths of God, many of the listeners scoffed and said, “that is heresy. We know the scriptures. We don’t need a burning in the heart to know what is a truth from God.”

One BIG difference, Parker. They were walking with Jesus Himself. And guess when it was that they finally recognized him? It was “in the breaking of the bread”, the Holy Eucharist, which you do not have. It wasn’t just a warm fuzzy feeling with nothing else to go on. They had witnessed the risen Christ first hand. Sorry, this isn’t even close to the “burning in the heart” that Mormon’s rely on.

 

[SteveVH]

ParkerD.

Not only does the BoM get it wrong that believers were called Christians, when the Holy Bible was here long before the BoM and the Bible says they were first called Christians in Antioch. But the BoM even gets the birthplace of Christ wrong, saying He was born in Jerusalem.

Calling them “Christians” in the BoM was just one more “oops” that didn’t get caught.

 

[SteveVH]

Yankee Drifter,

Good point, but you got it a tiny bit wrong. The passage says,

(Alma 7: 10)
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

You may think “in Jerusalem” means the same thing as “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”, but since Jerusalem was both a “land” (or an area of land) and a “city” (within the famous walls of Jerusalem), the distinction seems to be pretty significant.

That passage ought to show to any thoughtful reader that Joseph Smith and whomever is believed to be his “ghost writer of the Book of Mormon” would not have gotten such a simple thing wrong if they were making the book up. It’s like, “duh!”

Interesting. Can you show us in the Bible where Jerusalem is referred to as a “land”. It is always referred to as a city within the land. Even the “New Jerusalem” is referred to as the “City of God”. It is possible that I have missed this, but I would be interested in where you find this outside of the BoM.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You may think “in Jerusalem” means the same thing as “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”, but since Jerusalem was both a “land” (or an area of land) and a “city” (within the famous walls of Jerusalem), the distinction seems to be pretty significant.

I’m sorry if I’m repeating anybody’s prior post, but Jerusalem is a city and not a land. Bethlehem was where the Savior was born. To state that Jesus was born is Jerusalem is a clear error on the face of the writing.

ParkerD:

That passage ought to show to any thoughtful reader that Joseph Smith and whomever is believed to be his “ghost writer of the Book of Mormon” would not have gotten such a simple thing wrong if they were making the book up. It’s like, “duh!”

So, are you saying that because the error is so glaring it could not really be an error, because it comes from Joseph Smith’s writings? That reasoning seems rather circular to me. Are there any other early writings that refer to the birthplace of Jesus as Jerusalem?

And where is the evidence that the BoM predates the 1800s? I have yet to see any evidence for it presented. If I missed the post, please direct me to it.

 

[zerinus]

Interesting. Can you show us in the Bible where Jerusalem is referred to as a “land”. It is always referred to as a city within the land. Even the “New Jerusalem” is referred to as the “City of God”. It is possible that I have missed this, but I would be interested in where you find this outside of the BoM.

Although the “land of” argument is a valid one (there are BYU scholars who have explained that more clearly, in videos and articles that can be found on the Internet), I think that my argument is better! You can read it here.

 

[ParkerD]

One BIG difference, Parker. They were walking with Jesus Himself. And guess when it was that they finally recognized him? It was “in the breaking of the bread”, the Holy Eucharist, which you do not have. It wasn’t just a warm fuzzy feeling with nothing else to go on. They had witnessed the risen Christ first hand. Sorry, this isn’t even close to the “burning in the heart” that Mormon’s rely on.

SteveVH,

You are correct that they “recognized Him” when He gave them the obvious give-away whereby they would indeed remember that He had done that with them previously, but their sentence was very specific in saying “while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (That is when they had the “heart burn within us”.—not when He gave them the obvious clue about Himself.)

So, I disagree totally and completely.

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting. Can you show us in the Bible where Jerusalem is referred to as a “land”. It is always referred to as a city within the land. Even the “New Jerusalem” is referred to as the “City of God”. It is possible that I have missed this, but I would be interested in where you find this outside of the BoM.

SteveVH and Robert in SD,

Besides what Zerinus wrote about thoroughly as noted in the link he provided, and besides knowing that Joseph Smith was from a family who read the Bible aloud together and thus would have read Luke 2 (of course) at Christmas time every year and have been very familiar that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (what Bible-taught child isn’t familiar with that?), there are also the following verses in Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32:

19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

19:15 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.

(Thus, Jerusalem is both a “city” and a “place” and it has “all her towns”.)

Jeremiah 32:44 Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,

Good point, but you got it a tiny bit wrong. The passage says,

(Alma 7: 10)
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

You may think “in Jerusalem” means the same thing as “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers”, but since Jerusalem was both a “land” (or an area of land) and a “city” (within the famous walls of Jerusalem), the distinction seems to be pretty significant.

That passage ought to show to any thoughtful reader that Joseph Smith and whomever is believed to be his “ghost writer of the Book of Mormon” would not have gotten such a simple thing wrong if they were making the book up. It’s like, “duh!”

Nice twisting of words Parker. Being “in” or “at” really makes no difference. “at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers” (Alma 7:10). This is a false prophesy because Jerusalem has always been a city, it has never been a land. Also it is very clear in the Bible, that Jesus’ birth happened in “Bethlehem of Judea.” (Matt. 2:1)Joseph Smith wrote the BoM and he forgot where Christ was born. You have many errors in this one book. I’m sorry but not only does the BoM fail, but Mormonism on the whole does. You have way too many unbiblical beliefs to even qualify as a Christian faith. Even the Catholics agree.

 

[ParkerD]

… This is a false prophesy because Jerusalem has always been a city, it has never been a land.

Yankee Drifter,

Besides what Zerinus wrote about thoroughly as noted in the link he provided, and besides knowing that Joseph Smith was from a family who read the Bible aloud together and thus would have read Luke 2 (of course) at Christmas time every year and have been very familiar that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (what Bible-taught child isn’t familiar with that?), there are also the following verses in Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32 that show the word Jerusalem was used in a larger context than just inside the city walls:

19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

19:15 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.

(Thus, Jerusalem is both a “city” and a “place” and it has “all her towns”.)

Jeremiah 32:44 Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord.

Jer. 17: 26
26 And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house of the Lord.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee Drifter,

Besides what Zerinus wrote about thoroughly as noted in the link he provided, and besides knowing that Joseph Smith was from a family who read the Bible aloud together and thus would have read Luke 2 (of course) at Christmas time every year and have been very familiar that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (what Bible-taught child isn’t familiar with that?), there are also the following verses in Jeremiah 19 and Jeremiah 32 that show the word Jerusalem was used in a larger context than just inside the city walls:

19:3 And say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.

19:15 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.

(Thus, Jerusalem is both a “city” and a “place” and it has “all her towns”.)

Jeremiah 32:44 Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord.

Jer. 17: 26
26 And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, unto the house of the Lord.

I can also say places about NYC. Does that mean these places are necessarily lands?

If Joseph Smith was truly a man of the Bible, he would not have had the gall to rewrite it. He spent a lot of time rewriting Isaiah for example, and yet the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the Isaiah in our Bible is intact.

Parker you have been very patient on this forum, however I believe you would get more respect if you would be honest and just admit Smith made errors and your church does have many unscriptual teachings. This is more respectful than denials and cover ups.

 

[ParkerD]

I can also say “places about NYC”. Does that mean these places are necessarily lands?

If Joseph Smith was truly a man of the Bible, he would not have had the gall to rewrite it. He spent a lot of time rewriting Isaiah for example, and yet the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven that the Isaiah in our Bible is intact.

Parker you have been very patient on this forum, however I believe you would get more respect if you would be honest and just admit Smith made errors and your church does have many unscriptual teachings. This is more respectful than denials and cover ups.

Yankee Drifter,

If you read Zerinus’ link, it explains about the use of the word “land”. Do you happen to know where the “land of your forefathers” is?

Joseph Smith didn’t “spend a lot of time rewriting Isaiah”–don’t know where you got that impression.

The LDS church has teachings that you undoubtedly don’t understand, but they aren’t “unscriptural” and as I have stated many times on this forum, the LDS teachings tie more closely to the words of the Bible in direct meaning than those of any religion I have read about.