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

[yankee_drifter]

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.

Did Joseph Smith rewrite/revise Isaiah, Yes or No? How about John 1? He surely did change it to make Jesus a god and not GOD.

Mormonism teaches that Jesus earned his own salvation and godhood. He was only one of innumerable spirit offspring of the earth god and therefore no different in nature from any other spirit. He too had to undertake schooling and progression in the spirit world for who knows how long a duration.

McConkie confessed that Christ is a saved being. Doctrines of the Gospel teaches the plan of salvation which Elohim designed was to save His children, Christ included. If Jesus was always sinless why did he need salvation?

The lds teaches that Jesus was only sinless when he came in the flesh to die for the sins of humanity.

Although Ezra Benson said Jesus was a God in the pre-mortal existence, he also wrote that Jesus was still imperfect and lacking certain necessary things.

As man is, God once was. In order for God to have been like us, he would have had to sin.

One would be talking out of both sides of one’s mouth to say Jesus was once a mortal man like us and had to learn obedience in order to become a god, but oh he never sinned in the meantime.

This is blasphemous, Parker. God was never a man that he should lie, nor the son of man that he should repent. He was always God, never changes or keep evolving. He is the same yesterday, today and always.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Well, your blog might be convincing if I believed the BoM was a valid document. This is like asking the chef how his soup tastes. What we are saying here is that the BoM is in error. To prove that it isn’t by using that same document, considered erroneous by those you are trying to convince, would not seem to make a lot of sense. The question I asked Parker is if there is any evidence in the Bible that refers to Jerusalem as a “land”, not in the Book of Mormon. Apparently not.

The land was Judah. The city was Jerusalem.

 

[zerinus]

Well, your blog might be convincing if I believed the BoM was a valid document. This is like asking the chef how his soup tastes. What we are saying here is that the BoM is in error. . . .

In error about what? In error because it teaches that Jesus was born at or in Jerusalem? What if It can be shown from the context that it doesn’t teach that? The purpose of my blog was to demonstrate that it doesn’t teach that.

 

[SteveVH]

In error about what? In error because it teaches that Jesus was born at or in Jerusalem? What if It can be shown from the context that it doesn’t teach that? The purpose of my blog was to demonstrate that it doesn’t teach that.

Why didn’t it just say that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem? Why do you have to go through an entire exercise here to try and find a way to make it work? The entire premise of the origin of the BoM is suspect from my point of view (and the view of everyone else except Mormons). I find Joseph Smith to lack any credibility. There are entire passages lifted from Scripture as if Jesus was nothing more than a tape recorder. The fact that He purportedly appears to the Nephites and Laminites centuries before His incarnation. The fact that it is written in King James English, not just the actual book, but even the “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” who I seriously doubt spoke in this manner in the mid 1800’s in America. I could go on…

 

[Harvard]

Besides what has already been stated, there are a number of other responses by LDS apologists on the “Jerusalem” issue.

Jeff Lindsay’s article, found here, shows that Jerusalem is referred to as a “land” in the DSS:

*"Robert Eisenmann and Michael Wise, in The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1993), discuss one document that they have provisionally named “Pseudo-Jeremiah” (scroll 4Q385). The beginning of the damaged text reads as follows:

...Jeremiah the Prophet before the Lord
...w]ho were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem [Eretz Yerushalayim, column 1, line 2] (p. 58).

In their discussion of this text, Eisenmann and Wise elaborate on the significance of the phrase “land of Jerusalem,” which they see as an equivalent for Judah (Yehud):

"Another interesting reference is to the 'land of Jerusalem' in Line 2 of Fragment 1. This greatly enhances the sense of historicity of the whole, since Judah or 'Yehud' (the name of the area on coins from the Persian period) by this time consisted of little more than Jerusalem and its immediate environs." (p. 57)"*

A more lengthy paper, by LDS apologist Daniel Peterson, entitled “On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Jesus Christ” further addresses this issue, and shows that referring to Jerusalem as a “land” is not only consistent with ancient Near Eastern practices of referring to the area surrounding a city as a “land”, but that Jerusalem was not only referred to as a “city”, but the surrounding area was part of the “land of Jerusalem”, as was the case with other cities.

 

[zerinus]

Why didn’t it just say that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem? Why do you have to go through an entire exercise here to try and find a way to make it work?

There is no why about it. That is just the way it is. Every complex literary or historical work has nuances and shades of meaning associated with words within it. The Book of Mormon is no different. The credibility of it rests on whether it is internally consistent or not, which as I have demonstrated in this case, it is.

The entire premise of the origin of the BoM is suspect from my point of view (and the view of everyone else except Mormons). I find Joseph Smith to lack any credibility. There are entire passages lifted from Scripture as if Jesus was nothing more than a tape recorder. The fact that He purportedly appears to the Nephites and Laminites centuries before His incarnation. The fact that it is written in King James English, not just the actual book, but even the “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” who I seriously doubt spoke in this manner in the mid 1800’s in America. I could go on…

That is the subject of a different discussion. It has nothing to do with the subject of the present discussion. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

 

[SteveVH]

There is no why about it. That is just the way it is. Every complex literary or historical work has nuances and shades of meaning associated with words within it. The Book of Mormon is no different. The credibility of it rests on whether it is internally consistent or not, which as I have demonstrated in this case, it is.

Ok. I do think you make a good argument from the Mormon point of view. From my view it is proving something from a document that I believe is fraudulent to begin with. But, I do see your point. Good job by the way!

That is the subject of a different discussion. It has nothing to do with the subject of the present discussion. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

You asked "in error about what?’. So I told you. But you’re right, this is a subject of a different discussion, one in which I don’t particularly want to get into either.

Peace, zerinus.

 

[zerinus]

Ok. I do think you make a good argument from the Mormon point of view. From my view it is proving something from a document that I believe is fraudulent to begin with. But, I do see your point. Good job by the way!

Thank you. That internal consistency is in fact a strong evidence of its truth. (One among many.)

 

[yankee_drifter]

Why didn’t it just say that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem? Why do you have to go through an entire exercise here to try and find a way to make it work? The entire premise of the origin of the BoM is suspect from my point of view (and the view of everyone else except Mormons). I find Joseph Smith to lack any credibility. There are entire passages lifted from Scripture as if Jesus was nothing more than a tape recorder. The fact that He purportedly appears to the Nephites and Laminites centuries before His incarnation. The fact that it is written in King James English, not just the actual book, but even the “Testimony of the Three Witnesses” who I seriously doubt spoke in this manner in the mid 1800’s in America. I could go on…

I totally agree with you on this Steve. I believe that Christians would respect the lds more if they would just admit errors, instead of the perceptual denials and cover ups. When a religious group has unbiblical teachings, unfortunately it forces them to go through a lengthy exercise to try and make it work, like you said. These groups read their own theology into the Scriptures, instead of letting God speak for Himself and reject all beliefs that do not line up with His Word.

 

[SteveVH]

Thank you. That internal consistency is in fact a strong evidence of its truth. (One among many.)

Well, lets not get carried away here. It is quite possible to consistently speak in error. The fact that the error is consistent does not make it true. Keep in mind, the whole frey over “Jerusalem” vs. “Bethlehem” makes little difference to me. It is only one, very small part of the big picture when speaking of the legitimacy of the BoM.

 

[flyonthewall]

I totally agree with you on this Steve. I believe that Christians would respect the lds more if they would just admit errors, instead of the perceptual denials and cover ups. When a religious group has unbiblical teachings, unfortunately it forces them to go through a lengthy exercise to try and make it work, like you said. These groups read their own theology into the Scriptures, instead of letting God speak for Himself and reject all beliefs that do not line up with His Word.

From my point of view, the same can be said about the Catholic faith.

 

[SteveVH]

From my point of view, the same can be said about the Catholic faith.

Understandable. Any ideas on how we can get around that?

 

[flyonthewall]

Understandable. Any ideas on how we can get around that?

My thoughts may seem overly simplistic, but we can agree to disagree, without attacking the faith of the other.
It is a given that we have differences. We can discuss the differences, but remember that we are brothers in Christ. We are both striving for the same thing…Jesus stated: " But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." and has been said in the scriptures: “The Lord judge between me and thee”…

Explain why we beleive what we believe, answer the questions asked, but there is no need for attacks…

 

[yankee_drifter]

My thoughts may seem overly simplistic, but we can agree to disagree, without attacking the faith of the other.
It is a given that we have differences. We can discuss the differences, but remember that we are brothers in Christ. We are both striving for the same thing…Jesus stated: " But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." and has been said in the scriptures: “The Lord judge between me and thee”…

Explain why we beleive what we believe, answer the questions asked, but there is no need for attacks…

But are we really brothers in Christ? What about the full deity of Jesus? Do the lds believe that? Or was he a mortal like us and had to learn obedience? What about God. Do you believe he was always God?

Unless we believe in the Biblical God and Christ we risk our very eternal salvation. I am not catholic, but I respect the catholic church for always believing in the One True God and not in a pantheon of gods. The Catholic church has always been adamant about the Trinity. She has not strayed from any of this.

 

[flyonthewall]

But are we really brothers in Christ? What about the full deity of Jesus? Do the lds believe that? Or was he a mortal like us and had to learn obedience? What about God. Do you believe he was always God?

We absolutely are. We beleive that Jesus Christ has always been divine, and that God the Father has always been God. We do not believe that Jesus had to learn obedience, rather, He had to become mortal and overcome the world thru obedience to the will of the Father.

Unless we believe in the Biblical God and Christ we risk our very eternal salvation. I am not catholic, but I respect the catholic church for always believing in the One True God and not in a pantheon of gods. The Catholic church has always been adamant about the Trinity. She has not strayed from any of this.

And there in lies the rub…who defines what constitutes the “Biblical God”. I claim my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible, and so do you…yet we believe different things about God. It is all in the interpretation of the Bible words. We both read from the same book and come away with differing beliefs.
Just like the blind men and the elephant, you say the elephant is very much like a spear, and we say the elephant is very much like a tree. Our perceptions are from different positions, but indeed of the same thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We absolutely are. We beleive that Jesus Christ has always been divine, and that God the Father has always been God. We do not believe that Jesus had to learn obedience, rather, He had to become mortal and overcome the world thru obedience to the will of the Father.

What do you think of this (from lds.org):

“Often we forget that obedience must be learned. Even Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, learned perfect obedience, which qualified Him to serve as our Lawgiver and Lord.”

And this, is what defines Mormons as non-Christian, twisting scripture into something that is false:

“Jesus was a God in the preexistence.”

(Not to mention this idea that God must prove He is qualified. )

 

[zerinus]

Or was he a mortal like us and had to learn obedience?

He was divine, but became mortal like us, and as a mortal learned obedience:

Hebrews 5:

7 Who [Jesus] in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Got the idea now?

 

[yankee_drifter]

We absolutely are. We beleive that Jesus Christ has always been divine, and that God the Father has always been God. We do not believe that Jesus had to learn obedience, rather, He had to become mortal and overcome the world thru obedience to the will of the Father.

And there in lies the rub…who defines what constitutes the “Biblical God”. I claim my beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible, and so do you…yet we believe different things about God. It is all in the interpretation of the Bible words. We both read from the same book and come away with differing beliefs.
Just like the blind men and the elephant, you say the elephant is very much like a spear, and we say the elephant is very much like a tree. Our perceptions are from different positions, but indeed of the same thing.

I am well aware of what the lds church teaches. They believe in a plurality of gods and that these so called gods were once men. This includes heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The lds also believes that he may also become a god through obedience to church laws and ordinances, the sacraments, tithing, marriage sealing in the temple, etc.

The Biblical God is the one revealed in God’s Holy Word, the Holy Bible. It is God-Breathed. Authored by God, the Holy Spirit. There is no other book like it anywhere. None other can claim inspiration. These are the scriptures first given to the Jews whom God entrusted with His very Oracles, then to the followers of Jesus Christ who make up His Church.

If your beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible, then you would not have doctrines/teachings that conflict with it. God said He was always God. That He alone is God, There are no others, none before Him and none shall come after. This is what the One True God said. He recognizes no other gods, this includes a goddess wife. Jesus Christ was always God. John 1 says of Christ that In the beginning ( and we can’t go further back than that) The Word (Christ) was with God and the Word was God. Joseph Smith rewrote these precious Scriptures. Made many “revisions” and he changed John 1 so that Christ is a god. The JWs made a similar change.

What constitutes the Biblical God? There is only One God manifested in 3 Persons of the same exact essence, nature, being and substance: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. There are no other gods.

Its interesting that the lds wants to be our brother in Christ and yet your very own founder said all the Christian churches were wrong, our creeds and leaders were an abomination to God and corrupt. The lds says our Holy Bible is corrupt and filled with errors and that only your church can “translate it correctly.” Your church calls all non lds Gentiles failing to understand that all non Jews are Gentiles which includes most of the lds.

Christ’s Church recognizes Christ’s immaculate conception. That the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Savior. This is what God’s Word says but the lds rejects.

It has nothing to do with perceptions from different positions. It has to do with the True doctrine of God and Salvation which never changes. Unless one believes in the Jesus Christ that God’s Word testifies of, then one is believing in a fictitious christ who can save no one. Hinckley said the lds do not believe in the Biblical Christ. Jesus said unless you believe in Me, you will die in your sins. Your eternal salvation depends on this. Are you willing to risk that?

 

[JeanMichel]

He was divine, but became mortal like us, and as a mortal learned obedience:

Hebrews 5:

7 Who [Jesus] in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Got the idea now?

Rebecca, now who is twisting scripture: Mormons or Catholics? Did Jesus learn obedience or not? Now do you understand why I reject the position of a critic for most people? Unless there is a perfect understanding of history and scripture it is not advisable to play the role. When doing so, critics are made to look wrong and thereby the Catholic Church appears wrong.
What is so hard about just following the example of Christ? Love others and let the Holy Spirit guide them into the light and fullness of truth. That is our best solution; it sounds easy, but I know how difficult it can be. It demands a complete surrender of self and of ego.
Now tell me, did Jesus learn obedience or not? Does this really conflict with Catholic doctrine?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, now who is twisting scripture: Mormons or Catholics? Did Jesus learn obedience or not? Now do you understand why I reject the position of a critic for most people? Unless there is a perfect understanding of history and scripture it is not advisable to play the role. When doing so, critics are made to look wrong and thereby the Catholic Church appears wrong.
What is so hard about just following the example of Christ? Love others and let the Holy Spirit guide them into the light and fullness of truth. That is our best solution; it sounds easy, but I know how difficult it can be. It demands a complete surrender of self and of ego.
Now tell me, did Jesus learn obedience or not? Does this really conflict with Catholic doctrine?

JeanMichel, Catholics take scripture in its entirety. First, Jesus is God, and God is omniscient. So, knowing God is omniscient, what do you think St. Paul is telling us in Hebrews? That He does not know something?

[BIBLEDRB]John 16:27-33[/BIBLEDRB]