The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[dianaiad]

yes, if it is a true historical event you should be able to provide a date. But the apostasy isn’t, so you can’t. If you believe Rome fell because of a specific event, the date of the event is known. The Apostasy is nothing but an ahistorical Mormon belief. Trying to use the ‘fall of Rome’ as an analogy is laughable.

Only because you want to laugh, Stephen. The thing is, no historian puts a single date on the ‘Fall of Rome’ because, although there were important milestones during the process, no one thing can be pointed to as 'here, right HERE is the point when the fall of Rome became irreversible and inevitable; here is the date of the fall of the Roman Empire."

For the same reason, nobody can put an exact date on the Apostasy. For one thing, in some ways it is still going on; every change from the pure and simple truths that Christ taught is another step in the process. Every new Protestant sect that splits away because of doctrinal disagreements is another step. Every change, every new policy…every difference.

If those differences and changes come about because men decided, without direct revelation from God, that these changes are required, that’s an apostasy, for 'surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7). That’s certainly how He gave us the information we have of Christ, is it not?

This continued after Jesus’ death and resurrection, didn’t it? Didn’t Paul have such direct revelation? Didn’t the other apostles? They did…

So what happened?

I believe–the apostasy happened.

 

[Stephen168]

Only because you want to laugh, Stephen. The thing is, no historian puts a single date on the ‘Fall of Rome’ because, although there were important milestones during the process, no one thing can be pointed to as 'here, right HERE is the point when the fall of Rome became irreversible and inevitable; here is the date of the fall of the Roman Empire."

For the same reason, nobody can put an exact date on the Apostasy. For one thing, in some ways it is still going on; every change from the pure and simple truths that Christ taught is another step in the process. Every new Protestant sect that splits away because of doctrinal disagreements is another step. Every change, every new policy…every difference.

If those differences and changes come about because men decided, without direct revelation from God, that these changes are required, that’s an apostasy, for 'surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7). That’s certainly how He gave us the information we have of Christ, is it not?

a lot of words but no answer. Historians know the history of the Roman Empire and can give any date required. The Mormon Church will never give a date for an apostasy because it is not history.

 

[ParkerD]

Really, Parker?? Have you never really read the Book of Mormon?

Hi, Paul Dupre,
Glad to hear from you, and I hope you and your sons and family are all well, sincerely.

I guess when I read the post about “great cities” and “great roads” I had the feeling that the writer of that post was thinking of “cities” in the way that we of today would define a “city”, and that seemed to me to be nowhere near the connotation of the Book of Mormon when it says “great city.” If one reads 3 Nephi 11:1 one finds the words “great multitude gathered together”, then later in 3 Nephi 17:25 one learns that this “great multitude” was comprised of two thousand five hundred people. So it is safe to assume (especially in light of other numbers given in the text of the book) that a “great city” in their connotation was a city of over 2,500 people. I think anyone who had read the words of that post which I responded to would have been thinking of far greater numbers than 2,500 people in a city for it to be a “great city.” But you can say correctly that it does include the words “great cities” as you noted. Thanks for clarifying. I should have explained myself better. My personal guess is that the largest cities in the Book of Mormon Nephite/Lamanite civilizations numbered perhaps 25,000 - 30,000 people, or less.

 

[Janet1983]

Have any of you guys ever read the Book of Mormon?

I have the book of Mormon at home and I often read it too. Have you ever read it, if so then how did you get it?

It is called the book of Mormon because it was a guy called Mormon who put all the books together and collectively made one book out of it.

That’s a bit like calling the bible the book of John, or the book of Peter, or what ever…

Why wasn’t it given a proper decent name?

I did read parts of it… my husband got it from his father and I kept it for reference.
Apart from the contents there are some things I find pretty striking:

1. 
   *]If someone translates something out of a different language into English it is just natural that he uses the English of his own time, meaning modern English… Why then did J. Smith translate into King James English?
   *]Just in case there was a good reason for that, why did he switch into 19th century English somewhere down the line?
   *]If Israelites had left golden plates behind in the Americas, wouldn’t they have written in Hebrew and not at all in “Reformed Egyptian” a language unknown to experts?
   *]Why can’t we find the places described in the BoM? Where is “Bountiful”?
   *]Why does the BoM describe horses that did not get to the continent until the time of the first settlers?
   *]Where are the remains of the two great battles? Why isn’t there any sword found after a battle with masses of casualties?
   *]How is it possible that a whole nations get destroyed without leaving a lick of evidence behind?
   *]How come the BoM of the 50s still said that Lamanites would become “white and delightsome” while newer versions don’t have those racist comments?
   *]How come there have been thousands of changes in the BoM? There are substantial changes in the contents, but even if it were only grammar, wouldn’t God have made sure that J. Smith was not only capable of translating, but also capable of correct grammar?
   *]Of the three witnesses 2 were excommunicated, namely Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer… how come?
   *]The same here: Out of the 8 witnesses the Whitmer family was excommunicated… Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer and Hiram Page… The other 3 were J. Smiths brothers and his father: Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith
   
   There is more… and it’s getting even more looking at the contents…

 

[zerinus]

dianaiad, salvation after death? I just don’t get it. Is that biblical?? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. I’d be very interested in that.

We believe that when we die our spirits will go to the spirit-world where they await the resurrection and the final judgment. During the period that they are in the spirit-world, if they have sinned in this life (without repenting), they will be punished for their sins; and the gospel will be preached to them in the spirit-world, and they given the chance to accept it and repent. If they do so they can be saved or redeemed. If you want biblical proof, try this:

1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1 Peter 4:

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

This is not unlike the Catholic doctrine of the purgatory, but with some differences.

As explained, we also believe in the doctrine of vicarious baptisms for the dead, whereby those who have not had the opportunity to be baptized in their lifetime can avail themselves of that opportunity in the spirit-world if they choose to. We believe that baptism is essential for salvation in the celestial kingdom; and God being just, He would not deny salvation those who had not had that opportunity in this world through no fault of their own. Vicarious baptisms for the dead gives them the opportunity to accept or reject that ordinance in the spirit world which can be provided for them by proxy here on earth. If you want biblical proof of that, here is one:

1 Corinthians 15:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The quote given above from 1 Peter 4:6 is also applicable here.

And, when I say biblical, I’m requesting a passage from the Bible, not the Book of Mormon to which I give no weight. I may be wrong, but I think this is just another concept dreamed up by the LDS church.

Yes, you are wrong. The concept of continuing revelation and an open canon of scripture is a great principle affirmed to us by the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days, suggesting that the heavens are not closed, and God is an unchangeable God, and he does speak to us through His chosen servants the prophets today as He did in ancient times. We are as much in need of God’s revelations and direction today as they did in earlier days. Why should God be willing to have spoken to them, and then stop speaking today—and still remain an unchangeable Being? That just is not logical. If He has spoken before, He is willing to speak again, to those who believe.

After we “croak,” as you so humorously put it, I believe the poor soul is lost forever if he/she failed to accept Christ before the heart beat its last beat.

That is not entirely true. As shown in the scripture quotes from St Peter, the gospel can be preached in the sprit-world, and repentance is possible, and those who do and accept the proxy baptisms performed for them here on earth can be saved. If they have sinned in this life and not repented of it, they will be punished for their sins; but salvation is possible for them when they repent, after hearing the message of the gospel in the spirit-world.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes, and it’s usually the un-churched who fall prey to the erroneous and un-biblical state-
ments and promises made by these pseudo-religious cults.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

“pseudo-religious?” It’s not enough to deny any form of Christianity to those who disagree with you on some point of doctrine; you hold to yourself the term ‘religion,’ as well?

Are you going to decide that you, and those who agree with you, are the only people who have any beliefs at all? All of humanity but you have, merely, 'pseudo-beliefs," perhaps?

God may make Himself available to you insofar as you understand Him, but you cannot completely understand Who He is, can you? If you could, you would be as He is; omniscient, perhaps omnipotent.

Could it be possible that other people have truths that you do not have? Are you so convinced that you have everything, know all things, have such a complete understanding of Deity that you can so blithely dismiss other beliefs and people as being so completely beneath you, so utterly false in all they understand and believe?

I find this attitude to be more common than it should be. Here a group of you are, getting all offended because we claim that there was a ‘great apostasy’ that eventually required the restoration of the priesthood. That is an insult past bearing, evidently…but WE do not think that y’all have lost all truth, all faith, or are ‘pseudo-religious’ or ‘not Christian.’ We understand that those who believe in Christ and have faith in Him are Christians–and beloved by Him, even if they believe different things about Him than we do.

We do not call you "un-Christian,’ or ‘pseudo-religious.’ But you do that with us, and don’t see the sad and tragic irony of it.

And then you leave such a post as this with “Pax Domini.”

That’s like saying “Go to hell, you and the horse you rode in on…and by the way, God’s peace be with you.”

That’s just wrong, y’know?

“The **pseudo-Christian **world has stumbled over the meaning of this simple text, and not a few commentators have tried to explain away its true applicability to all mankind of the Savior’s teachings.” (McKay, David O., “The Purpose of Temples”, Ensign Magazine, January 1972)

David O.McKay was the Mormon president/prophet from 1951-1970.

Compared to Mormonism they are “pseudo-Christians”. Mormonism is the true, pure, pristine form of Christianity.

So, anything written more than 100 years ago doesn’t count in Mormonism?

Mormon founder and “prophet” Joesph Smith proclaimed, "ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God’s kingdom on earth. . ".

That’s an insult to all of Christendom. And you wonder why you are not well received.

Really? You consider a statement like that to be an insult to all of Christendom? Why, it’s simply a statement of doctrinal fact as we believe it; it is the reason we believe that the priesthood had to be restored–because it wasn’t actually here.

How interesting, though, that you consider it to be an insult and are upset. Perhaps you can understand, then, why Mormons don’t particularly appreciate it when folks like you not only declare us to be not Christian, but insist that we agree with you about that.

You will note that Joseph was talking about these teachers lacking authority–but not telling them that they were not Christian.

 

[ParkerD]

dianaiad, salvation after death? I just don’t get it. Is that biblical?? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. I’d be very interested in that. And, when I say biblical, I’m requesting a passage from the Bible, not the Book of Mormon to which I give no weight. I may be wrong, but I think this is just another concept dreamed up by the LDS church. After we “croak,” as you so humorously put it, I believe the poor soul is lost forever if he/she failed to accept Christ before the heart beat its last beat.

Use me Lord,
Zerinus has provided several completely relevant scriptures from the Bible. I would also add that when Peter talked about “prison” he was using one of the connotations of that word as is used in Isaiah 61:2. “Liberty to the captives” and the “opening of the prison to them that are bound” really does apply not only figuratively on earth for those who have been “imprisoned” by their sins, but also literally for those spirits who are in “spirit prison” because of not having had the opportunity to repent and be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost so they could be sanctified during their life on earth. They “live according to God in the spirit” but are “judged according to men in the flesh.”

This explains why God was not being unjust or angry or uncharacteristic of His benevolent nature when He caused the flood at the time of Noah. The people weren’t repenting, and were generally wicked. God “took” them to the spirit world where they could “wait” for Christ to visit them and teach the gospel to them and allow them to accept His atoning grace. He had this planned, as Isaiah shows. God has a plan for all of the spirits who have received bodies on this earth, and He loves all of them, each and every one.

 

[zerinus]

I did read parts of it… my husband got it from his father and I kept it for reference.
Apart from the contents there are some things I find pretty striking:

1 If someone translates something out of a different language into English it is just natural that he uses the English of his own time, meaning modern English… Why then did J. Smith translate into King James English?

That is nitpicking rather than serious criticism. The KJV was the standard Bible in use at that time, and its language was considered reverent and the proper language for the sacred writ.

2 Just in case there was a good reason for that, why did he switch into 19th century English somewhere down the line?

No idea what you are talking about.

3 If Israelites had left golden plates behind in the Americas, wouldn’t they have written in Hebrew and not at all in “Reformed Egyptian” a language unknown to experts?

If you had bothered to read the Book of Mormon you wouldn’t have needed to ask that question. See Mormon 9:32–33.

4 Why can’t we find the places described in the BoM? Where is “Bountiful”?

Book of Mormon archaeology is not like Bible archaeology. In Bible archeology we have a historical continuity with the past by which many sites are already identified; therefore we know where to dig for archaeological evidence for it. We know for example where Jerusalem is by historical continuity; therefore we know where to dig for historical evidence for it. If we had no idea where Jerusalem was, and didn’t even know where to dig for it, the chances of finding it, or identifying it with certainty, would be pretty slim. That is the situation with Book of Mormon archaeology.

5 Why does the BoM describe horses that did not get to the continent until the time of the first settlers?

Latest archaeological discoveries points to the existence of horses in pre-Colombian America.

6 Where are the remains of the two great battles? Why isn’t there any sword found after a battle with masses of casualties?

See above. Such artifacts also disappear very quickly in natural environments.

7 How is it possible that a whole nations get destroyed without leaving a lick of evidence behind?

They did leave evidence. Ancient civilizations of the Americas we believe belong to the Book of Mormons people; but a clear link between them and the Book of Mormon has not yet been established because their languages have not yet been adequately understood, and other changes taken place in their history that we cannot not trace.

8 How come the BoM of the 50s still said that Lamanites would become “white and delightsome” while newer versions don’t have those racist comments?

Because “white” in biblical terms is synonymous with “pure” (see Daniel 12:10; Revelation 3:5; 19:8), and the change was made to avoid misunderstanding.

9 How come there have been thousands of changes in the BoM? There are substantial changes in the contents, but even if it were only grammar, wouldn’t God have made sure that J. Smith was not only capable of translating, but also capable of correct grammar?

They are not “substantial changes”. 99% of them are punctuation changes, or adjustment of the spelling to modern standards.

10 Of the three witnesses 2 were excommunicated, namely Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer… how come?

A more significant fact is that none of them ever denied their testimony.

11 The same here: Out of the 8 witnesses the Whitmer family was excommunicated… Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer and Hiram Page… The other 3 were J. Smiths brothers and his father: Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith

See above.

There is more… and it’s getting even more looking at the contents…

If they are the same as the above, don’t bother wasting your time.

 

[zerinus]

Answersplease:
Answersplease,

Do you have a useful contribution to make to this discussion apart from wasting space? It gets a bit boring after a while.

 

[DonLeon]

Answersplease,

Do you have a useful contribution to make to this discussion apart from wasting space? It gets a bit boring after a while.

After reading all the posts made concerning the BOM and the doctrines of the LDS, I ( and
many others ) find the explanations and claims made by the LDS to be utterly bombastic, pompous, and practically bordering on the ridiculous. Your claim about baptism holds absolutely no water, for if it were true then God ( Jesus ) has reneged on his promise and command. To claim that the early church apostasized and no longer is true and is replaced by the LDS ( a man made religion ) is a very pompous claim. It seems that the LDS does not know the definition of, nor difference between, apostacy, schism and heresy. The early church never apostasized, for it still preaches today what Jesus and the apostles taught,and its baptism today is valid, for it is under the direct authority of Jesus. The claims made by the LDS cannot be proven ( 1 ) historicaly, ( 2 )
paleontologicaly ( 3 ) scientificaly, nor ( 4 ) by holy scripture.

Like all other “churches” who make the same andd/or similar claims, the LDS is MAN MADE. If the true church apostasized, as you claim, the why did not Jesus come back,
chastise the people, and reestablish His church? The answer of course is that He did not need to since He promised to be with His Church always and that the Holy Spirit will
protect it from all error. If this were not so then Jesus was/is a LIAR, there is NO Holy
Spirit, God DOES NOT care what happens to us, and all we believe in, etc. and our
wosrhip is completely futile and we are fooling ourselves and building sand castles in the air!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[zerinus]

After reading all the posts made concerning the BOM and the doctrines of the LDS, I ( and
many others ) find the explanations and claims made by the LDS to be utterly bombastic, pompous, and practically bordering on the ridiculous. Your claim about baptism holds absolutely no water, for if it were true then God ( Jesus ) has reneged on his promise and command. To claim that the early church apostasized and no longer is true and is replaced by the LDS ( a man made religion ) is a very pompous claim. It seems that the LDS does not know the definition of, nor difference between, apostacy, schism and heresy. The early church never apostasized, for it still preaches today what Jesus and the apostles taught,and its baptism today is valid, for it is under the direct authority of Jesus. The claims made by the LDS cannot be proven ( 1 ) historicaly, ( 2 )
paleontologicaly ( 3 ) scientificaly, nor ( 4 ) by holy scripture.

Like all other “churches” who make the same andd/or similar claims, the LDS is MAN MADE. If the true church apostasized, as you claim, the why did not Jesus come back,
chastise the people, and reestablish His church? The answer of course is that He did not need to since He promised to be with His Church always and that the Holy Spirit will
protect it from all error. If this were not so then Jesus was/is a LIAR, there is NO Holy
Spirit, God DOES NOT care what happens to us, and all we believe in, etc. and our
wosrhip is completely futile and we are fooling ourselves and building sand castles in the air!

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

I find your post to be “utterly bombastic, pompous, and practically bordering on the ridiculous,” and undeserving of further comment.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,

Do you have a useful contribution to make to this discussion apart from wasting space? It gets a bit boring after a while.

The post just shows the underhanded and misleading tactics you and your allies use, but its OK to lie when your “gathering Israel” is’nt?

You get boring after a while.

You ignore logic and evidence, your loyalty is unquestioning and you will ALLWAYS find some FARFETCHED EXCUSE for Joseph Smith
and your leaders and your FALSE RELIGION.

 

[zerinus]

The post just shows that underhanded and misleading tactics you and your allies use, but its OK to lie when your “gathering Israel” is’nt?

You get boring after a while.

You ignore logic and evidence, your loyalty is unquestioning and you will ALLWAYS find some FARFETCHED EXCUSE for Joseph Smith
and your leaders and your FALSE RELIGION.

Then be it known to you that I read posts only once, when posted by the original poster, not reposted by someone else.

You are more boring than I had imagined.

 

[Answersplease]

The “revelation” concerning blacks is certainly a “correction” from the earlier teaching of the LDS. However, you still have the nasty comments about blacks in the BOM that yall have been tap dancing around and you can’t remove them as they are doctrine.

It is no such thing. God has the right to give one commandment at one time, and a different commandment at another time. And He is not obliged to always give us an explanation why.

Here is a “positive” contribution,

it is nice to know that YOUR VERSION of God is only RACIST some of the time and not all of the time.

I’m glad you FINALLY let black men into your priesthood.

White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome?
mrm.org/white-and-delightsome

 

[Zundrah]

Then be it known to you that I read posts only once, when posted by the original poster, not reposted by someone else.

You are more boring than I had imagined.

Zerius! :tsktsk: Be nice!

 

[Answersplease]

Then be it known to you that I read posts only once, when posted by the original poster, not reposted by someone else.

You are more boring than I had imagined.

I’m not impressed by you or your limited and deceptive imagination.

At least Joseph Smith was able to MAKE UP his own religion.

 

[zerinus]

White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome?
mrm.org/white-and-delightsome

Read my reply to question 8 in post #307, and don’t ask so many dumb questions.

 

[Christian55]

I believe that it is biblical–it is certainly alluded to when Paul wrote to the Galatians about faith…that Abraham believed in God, and it was “accounted to him for righteousness” (chapter 3 v 6) In other words, Abraham, who most certainly never had the chance to hear about and accept Christ while in life, was nevertheless counted as ‘righteous’ (saved…) because he believed in God and lived his religion the way he was supposed to.

**Now here’s the thing, Useme–I don’t do proof text debates.
**
I’m not out to show you that our beliefs are TRUE. I can only explain what they are and why we believe them. In order to do that, I may have to give you quotes from books that we accept as scripture, even if you don’t. Whether you believe them to be true or not is your choice and option, but to tell me that I can’t quote the Book of Mormon to you in order to explain why we believe something, you are being unreasonable. It’s like asking a Christian to explain why he believes Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah–but oh, by the way, he can’t quote from the New Testament.

Frankly, I don’t really care if you believe the way I do or not. My only purpose in getting into conversations like this is to make certain that if you are going to disagree with our beliefs and doctrines, you disagree with what they actually are, not straw concoctions we don’t recognize as belonging to us.

The fact that you don’t “do proof text debates” is a huge problem. The LDS members state beliefs and then claim they are inferred or implied in Scripture; or received by revelation. You throw in a few Scriptures here and there, but they never really prove your beliefs. Anyone can claim anything using this method.

The Word of God is powerful, as we are told in Scripture:
Hebrews 4:12 (ESV): 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I also notice, LDS Forum Members do not refer to Christ very often. (The recent posts on this thread seem to be the exception.) I noticed this when attending Mormon Services-about 12 years ago. My son was young, then. After a few visits he said to me, “Mom, I don’t like this Church. They never talk about Jesus.” –out of the mouth of babes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We believe that when we die our spirits will go to the spirit-world where they await the resurrection and the final judgment. During the period that they are in the spirit-world, if they have sinned in this life (without repenting), they will be punished for their sins; and the gospel will be preached to them in the spirit-world, and they given the chance to accept it and repent. If they do so they can be saved or redeemed. If you want biblical proof, try this:

This is not unlike the Catholic doctrine of the purgatory, but with some differences.

:

It is not at all like purgatory.

 

[ParkerD]

The fact that you don’t “do proof text debates” is a huge problem. The LDS members state beliefs and then claim they are inferred or implied in Scripture; or received by revelation. You throw in a few Scriptures here and there, but they never really prove your beliefs. Anyone can claim anything using this method.

The Word of God is powerful, as we are told in Scripture:
Hebrews 4:12 (ESV): 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I also notice, LDS Forum Members do not refer to Christ very often. (The recent posts on this thread seem to be the exception.) I noticed this when attending Mormon Services-about 12 years ago. My son was young, then. After a few visits he said to me, “Mom, I don’t like this Church. They never talk about Jesus.” –out of the mouth of babes.

Hi, Christian55,
'Hope your family is doing well. Where did you attend where they didn’t talk often about Jesus Christ? I would be interested in knowing, since that doesn’t match my experience.