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

[Christian55]

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.

I live in a major city in the U.S.A. There is an elaborate Mormon Temple about 3 miles from my home. I attended a Ward here.

About 12 years ago, I joined the Mormon Church after taking lessons with Mormon Missionaries. A Mormon Bishop was a friend of mine.

After I discovered the true Mormon beliefs, I left the church. I felt deceived and betrayed by my friend, the Mormon Bishop. He is not speaking to me now.

 

[ParkerD]

I live in a major city in the U.S.A. There is an elaborate Mormon Temple about 3 miles from my home. I attended a Ward here.

About 12 years ago, I joined the Mormon Church after taking lessons with Mormon Missionaries. A Mormon Bishop was a friend of mine.

After I discovered the true Mormon beliefs, I left the church. I felt deceived and betrayed by my friend, the Mormon Bishop. He is not speaking to me now.

Christian55,
I can see why you would have some hard feelings. No question that a Mormon bishop is human, and no question that he should still be your friend in every way. Sorry that happened.

As far as revelation and the Bible, the Bible communicates that revelation should be a major part of people’s lives, a source of strength and rejoicing. I love how the Bible communicates that message for all people, Jews and Gentiles.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Actually, Z, your answer in post 307 wasn’t quite complete. The ‘change’ from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” was made in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith, as a correction from the first printer’s edition to reflect what his written manuscript read. However, the 1837 edition was used as the basis for the 1879 and 1820 editions, and the phrase ‘white and delightsome’ (used, as you mentioned, in the same sense as it is used in the bible; “white,” meaning “pure,” not “pale of skin.”)

The 1981 (current) edition of the Book of Mormon has an “about this edition” section which refers to this; the editors/scholars of the book looked at the prepublished manuscripts, and the early revisions that Joseph Smith himself made, and used those in the current edition; not to ‘change’ it, but to bring it back to its original intended form.

Oh, and to fix the spelling and grammar, of course.

 

[Zundrah]

Actually, Z, your answer in post 307 wasn’t quite complete. The ‘change’ from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” was made in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith, as a correction from the first printer’s edition to reflect what his written manuscript read. However, the 1837 edition was used as the basis for the 1879 and 1820 editions, and the phrase ‘white and delightsome’ (used, as you mentioned, in the same sense as it is used in the bible; “white,” meaning “pure,” not “pale of skin.”)

The 1981 (current) edition of the Book of Mormon has an “about this edition” section which refers to this; the editors/scholars of the book looked at the prepublished manuscripts, and the early revisions that Joseph Smith himself made, and used those in the current edition; not to ‘change’ it, but to bring it back to its original intended form.

Oh, and to fix the spelling and grammar, of course.

Dianaiad,
My friend Lydia has got issues with me now because I told her by email that I will not let her come around to my house with her missionary sisters… I told her to just get me and we’ll go to your church together on sunday. As if it isn’t enough that I am going to miss mass that day!

…

 

[dianaiad]

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.

You are quite right. Mark Twain claimed that he could prove anything at all using the bible as proof, then turn around and prove its exact opposite using the same work. This is another reason I don’t do proof text debates. You seem to have a problem understanding my point, sir. I am absolutely uninterested in attempting to prove that my beliefs are true using scripture–or anything else. For one thing, I can’t do that, any more than you can prove yours are true to me. There is only one way to prove religious truth one way or another, and argument isn’t it. The proof lies in communication with God, Who will confirm the truth by way of the Holy Ghost.

I repeat. I can only show you what my beliefs ARE. I can show you some scriptural references to illustrate those beliefs, and to show you why we think they are true. However, just as you could quote scripture all day to me and not change my mind, I could do the same without changing yours. All we would do is irritate each other and sharpen our own beliefs. I suppose that’s a good thing, sharpening our own beliefs, that is—but it’s not going to help the person we are arguing with.

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.

Indeed it is. However, the Word of God seems to be used and wrested about 'with every wind and fortune," by people of all different motives and beliefs. There are two words that people use in terms of scripture: Exegesis and Eisegesis. Oddly enough, the most commonly USED is eisegesis, though not that many people actually know what it is.

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.

Then your son wasn’t paying attention. We open in His name, the first thing we do is partake of the sacrament to remember Him …the first half of our Sacrament meetings is devoted to nothing BUT Him (the name of the meeting is an indication of the entire purpose.)

Or perhaps…you were not paying attention. Shall I return the favor and tell you that the only mass I’ve ever attended (that was not a wedding) didn’t mention Jesus anywhere at all, either? As far as I could tell, in my inexperience, it did not.

In my studies since then, of course, I have come to understand that the entirety of the mass is about Him…as is the entirety of our Sacrament meetings.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that just because the format of our meetings is not what you are used to, that they are not about Him. As well, your comment was a superfluous and completely off topic slam. It affects the credibility of your argument.

 

[dianaiad]

I live in a major city in the U.S.A. There is an elaborate Mormon Temple about 3 miles from my home. I attended a Ward here.

About 12 years ago, I joined the Mormon Church after taking lessons with Mormon Missionaries. A Mormon Bishop was a friend of mine.

After I discovered the true Mormon beliefs, I left the church. I felt deceived and betrayed by my friend, the Mormon Bishop. He is not speaking to me now.

I don’t wonder at that, sir.

Your version of what we believe does not match our true beliefs at all. You haven’t made a strawman to attack; you have erected a straw city, and insist that we live in it. Your version of Mormonism is one that I, quite frankly don’t recognize at all.

 

[Zundrah]

I don’t wonder at that, sir.

Your version of what we believe does not match our true beliefs at all. You haven’t made a strawman to attack; you have erected a straw city, and insist that we live in it. Your version of Mormonism is one that I, quite frankly don’t recognize at all.

…dianaiad, are you ignoring me?

 

[Harpazo]

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

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You seem to say this sort of thing a lot, Zerinus. Why can’t you ever answer anyone’s claims or criticism? Whenever you get backed into a corner because someone points out serious flaws with Mormonism that you cannot address, you say someone is “boring” or “asking dumb questions.” Your witness on here has shown that Mormonism is built on quicksand.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Janet1983]

Part 1 of 2

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.

If I was a copycat with serious problems with grammar and spelling I would do the same thing… and if I was getting annoyed by all the “thee” and “thou” I wouldn’t mind changing it…

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

32 And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew behold, ye would have no imperfection in our record.

That’s the silliest excuse I have ever read. Really and I can’t take it serious.
Did you know that the second generation of settlers to Canada had severe problems? They moved there and found out that the English language had been altered… However they could adjust quickly, because a new environment and new things to name as well as being separated from the British Isles did change the language. This is however not very significant as it deals with minor grammar and some vocabulary changes.
Reformed Egyptian never existed and it is preposterous to assume that these Israelites did speak it and used it to write. The chosen nation of God, that was led out of Egypt wouldn’t use the language of their former captors. That’s just ridiculous.
Ever looked at Nephi 1? That’s where you usually start reading… If there is anything true about this story they were Israelites from Jerusalem… Lehi had lived there all his life and of course his language was Hebrew (like of all the others).
And here is something else: J. Smith knew neither language, so it wouldn’t have mattered for the translation.

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.

There is NOTHING in Mezoamerica (well the pictures did indicate that) and nothing around the Hill Cumorah… Well of course not. They did some digging and didn’t find anything. After all the hill is owned by the LDS church… If they would continue digging they would only produce proof that they are a spoof or at least that they own some silly hill in the state of New York that is not the hill Cumorah. Oh yes and if it’s that supposedly fitting hill in Mexico… how did J. Smith manage to walk there from Palmyra?
But take a look at this map… Shouldn’t there at least be some remains? We find remains of ancient civilisations all over Europe and there is nothing here… That’s impossible.
Why are the remains of places that are so important as “Bountiful” and “Zarahemla” nowhere to be found? And why isn’t the church on a quest to find them instead of pumping their money into businesses of any other kind?

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

Proof?

 

[Janet1983]

Part 2 of 2

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

No they don’t. We still find artefacts from Egypt that are metal and “dated” 4000 BC…
By the way here’s something new for you: Steel weapons last longer than you average Egyptian knife or teapot… Why aren’t there any excavations? Because there is nothing to be found.

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.

There is evidence, we just can’t link it because we don’t understand their language… That’s a crutch. If you don’t understand them why do you claim that they believed in the BoM people? And why do Central American Archaeologists deny that there ever was such a connection. Why don’t they know where Bountiful and Zarahemla are?

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.

It said white and delightsome and it also said that no Lamanite would ever achieve priesthood. Hey they didn’t change the Bible, so why change this? Silly critters… they actually believed people would change colours… Well they did, considering the fact that they thought that the Lamanites were punished with a dark skin. Becoming good therefore means to become white… literally. No change in the text is going to change that and no reference to the Bible (which they didn’t believe anyway) is going to change that either…

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

Funny… one of them is to be seen right above. Change of meaning (and that was substantial).

"… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior … " (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 32)

“… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior …” (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, 1 Nephi 13:40)

“… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior …” (Book of Mormon, 1989 edition, page 27, 1 Nephi 13:40)

Or maybe this one:

“… king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings …” (Book of Mormon, 1830 edition, page 200)

“… king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings …” (Book of Mormon, 1964 edition, Mosiah 21:28)

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

Just found this interesting page…

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

I sure don’t waste my time… Maybe by some weird chance I manage to plant enough doubt for you to seek the real Christ. I mean Gordon B. Hinckley himself said that the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible are not one and the same…

 

[Alma_X]

Wow! I’m gone for a half day and all of a sudden four pages of posts behind. After reading and catching up on what has transpired with this mushrooming thread, I found it more than a bit curious that there was no challenge (unless I missed it) to the assertion by one of the LDS contributors that baptism outside the LDS church was not valid. I found that claim to be astounding, unbelievable and preposterous. Unless I misinterpreted what was stated, how can Mormons not only stand on such a notion, but essentially simultaneously nullify all the multitude of baptisms (surely in the billions of people) in the preceding 1850 years (prior to the invention of the Mormon religion) that were performed “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”? Sounds like the LDS church is painting with a rather broad brush by asserting the only a Mormon baptism is a valid baptism. So, will you Mormons out there clarify this for me? Is this what you truly believe? And you others out there, non-Mormons (especially Catholics), what say you? Personally, it doesn’t bother me considering the source; i.e. as a four year convert, I know, and am comfortable, where the truth lies. I put all my trust in the Bible, not some other manufactured tome fabricated by an uneducated, inarticulate, illiterate con man who was once sued by the U.S. government for fraud. Oh, by the way, that would be JS.

The LDS church doesn’t recognize baptisms as valid outside their organization, and it’s a bit tit-for-tat, because nobody else on the planet recognizes their baptisms as valid. I say that, not to throw stones, but rather to submit something that bothered me when I was LDS. There was an argument that went something like this:

LDS: “If you don’t recognize our baptisms as valid, then what do you care if we baptize your dead relatives / holocaust victims / Mickey Mouse / whatever?”

Well, there are a lot of valid emotional responses involved when another organization basically submits that these folks went through life with something less than their spiritual understanding would allow. To those who don’t buy the LDS theology, its a slap in the face.

On the other side, the LDS believe it their duty to, in essence, offer that understanding to the world, and it is up to the individual subject to accept or decline that, even after death.

Now that I’ve crossed over to “The Dark Side” , I feel that there was something missing, rather than exalted, about my baptism in the Mormon church. I was at one with the Mormon church, not with God.

Still, the LDS are led by well meaning individuals who believe they are fulfilling their duty to God. Anyone who wishes to offer a prayer or good intentions on behalf of my dead relatives is certainly welcome, and I believe the Mormons are trying to become more sensitive to that.

Blessings,
X

 

[Janet1983]

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

Are we getting to you that you have to start insulting others?

 

[zerinus]

Actually, Z, your answer in post 307 wasn’t quite complete. The ‘change’ from “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” was made in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, by Joseph Smith, as a correction from the first printer’s edition to reflect what his written manuscript read. However, the 1837 edition was used as the basis for the 1879 and 1820 editions, and the phrase ‘white and delightsome’ (used, as you mentioned, in the same sense as it is used in the bible; “white,” meaning “pure,” not “pale of skin.”)

The 1981 (current) edition of the Book of Mormon has an “about this edition” section which refers to this; the editors/scholars of the book looked at the prepublished manuscripts, and the early revisions that Joseph Smith himself made, and used those in the current edition; not to ‘change’ it, but to bring it back to its original intended form.

Oh, and to fix the spelling and grammar, of course.

Thank you dianaiad for your comments. I know that Joseph Smith made a number of small but significant changes in the second edition of the Book of Mormon that he published, the most notable of which were probably in the following verses:

“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of [the Son of] God, after the manner of the flesh.” (1 Nephi 11:18.)

“And the angel said unto me, Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even [the Son of] the Eternal Father!” (1 Nephi 11:21.)

“And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [the Son of] the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.” (1 Nephi 11:32.)

“And the angel spake unto me, saying, that the Lamb of God is [the Son of] the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world.” (1 Nephi 13:40.)

In all the above verses, the phrase [the Son of] was added by Joseph Smith when he revised the manuscript for the second edition. But as far as I am aware, the particular change that we are now discussing (“white” to “pure”) was not part of those changes that Joseph Smith had made. I would need to research the matter further to be convinced that that is the case. The quote you gave form the “About this edition” paragraph in the Book of Mormon explanatory notes is not sufficient to establish that claim. That criterion may apply to most of the changes made in the Book of Mormon, but not necessarily to all of them. Not all of the changes were made for that reason.

Also, your assertion that Joseph Smith made those changes “as a correction from the first printer’s edition to reflect what his written manuscript read,” may not be correct. I don’t think it is known why Joseph Smith made those changes. To conclude that he made them for that reason is conjecture rather than fact.

 

[zerinus]

Dianaiad,
My friend Lydia has got issues with me now because I told her by email that I will not let her come around to my house with her missionary sisters… I told her to just get me and we’ll go to your church together on sunday. As if it isn’t enough that I am going to miss mass that day!

…

Our missionaries have a rule that they go everywhere together in pairs. They can’t split up for whatever reason. She would have to break mission rules to come and pick you up by herself. They are not allowed to do that. Ordinary Church member could come and pick you up by themselves; but not the missionaries.

 

[zerinus]

The LDS church doesn’t recognize baptisms as valid outside their organization, and it’s a bit tit-for-tat, because nobody else on the planet recognizes their baptisms as valid.

That is entirely incorrect. We did not recognize their baptisms long before they decided to retaliate by not recognizing ours. The LDS Church refused to recognize the baptisms of other churches almost from the day it was organized. Other churches continued to recognize LDS baptisms for a long time before they decided to retaliate by not recognizing our baptisms. The “tit-for-tat” action was taken by them, not by us.

 

[Christian55]

I don’t wonder at that, sir.

Your version of what we believe does not match our true beliefs at all. You haven’t made a strawman to attack; you have erected a straw city, and insist that we live in it. Your version of Mormonism is one that I, quite frankly don’t recognize at all.

You would need to discredit my experience to try to maintain your own credibility. I’ll give you that one. We all do that to some extent. Of course, each of us believes were are right. That makes the discussion interesting.

However, your words will not change what I found inside the Mormon faith.

 

[LutheranDK]

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 don’t really care all that much about its name. I care about its contents, and its contents is…well, to put it mildly, hogwash.
I got it from a mormon missionary who also told me that Joseph Smith was 14 when he was called to be a prophet, and 17 when he “found” the tablets on which the text of the BoM was supposedly inscribed.

My comment: It shows!
Most of what I’ve read so far are eyesores, clear copying of the language style of the KJV, hopeless anachronisms, obvious mistakes (for instance names of supposed Jews that are not even remotely Hebraic), etc.
It’s a hoax. A smart con-artist who impresseed some people with his rhetorical skills (like Muhammed and President Obama), and who had enough working knowledge of the language of the KJV to put a text together, written in the same style.

To put it short and siple:
Bah! Humbug!

 

[zaffiroborant]

Our missionaries have a rule that they go everywhere together in pairs. They can’t split up for whatever reason. She would have to break mission rules to come and pick you up by herself. They are not allowed to do that. Ordinary Church member could come and pick you up by themselves; but not the missionaries.

Is Lydia on a mission?? I thought she was just a friend of Zundrah’s who wanted to bring the missionaries to her house???

 

[Christian55]

Zundrah: Be careful my friend. I have been down this road myself. My experiences were very much the same as Anna Scott’s.

Please read Anna Scott’s story. Kolab is a star, not a planet, but an easy mistake, when one has gone through so much trauma.

Originally Posted by Anna Scott

Finrock,

My Mormon friends did answer my questions. They confirmed the very beliefs that you say are “either misconstrued LDS doctrine or not LDS doctrine at all.”

They confirmed the following as beliefs of the LDS Church: God has a wife and lives on another planet (Kolob); there are other gods of other worlds; Joseph Smith wrote that he believed that Adam was god.

Even now, there are websites that confirm these beliefs, and even say Mormons believe that God was once a man, which fits the writings of Joseph Smith.

I would have let this go; but since you are denying that these things are doctrines of the LDS Church; I will tell you more about my experience with the Mormon church.

A Mormon bishop and his wife were my neighbors, before my divorce. I had known them for years. I admired the strength of their family. The bishop seemed like the father I never had. So, after my divorce, they invited me to their church. For weeks, I took lessons at the bishop’s home- with the Mormon Bishop and two Mormon missionaries.

I was at a very vulnerable point in my life. I wanted to belong someplace. I was a single mom, with no family in my city.

So, I went to the Mormon church and finished all the lessons. There were things that concerned me about the church services. I rarely heard the name of Christ spoken. Almost without exception, testimonies began with a statement of belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I was told that there are three heavens. I was also told that God, in the flesh, impregnated Mary.

I did eventually decide to join the church. The day before my baptism, a family member called me and told me about the Mormon belief that God has a wife and lives on another planet (kolob,) and men can become gods. I was so shocked; because none of this was discussed in the lessons-except a passing mention of exaltation-with no clear explanation.

So, I called the Bishop’s house and spoke to one of his daughters. I asked if these beliefs were true, and she admitted that they were. I was really shaken, but I did proceed with baptism. After the baptism, things became very strange. Every time I tried to read the Book of Mormon, I would feel ill–as if I were in a place of darkness.

Then one evening, I heard a knock at my door. It was a friend of mine who drove from another state for a surprise visit. During her stay, I told her that I had been baptized into the Mormon church. She told me she had taken the lessons many years ago. She also told me she found one of Joseph Smith’s early books. Smith actually wrote that he believed Adam was god.

I knew I had to break the connection with the Mormon church as quickly as possible. So, I called the bishop’s wife and told her I did not want any further connection with the Mormon church. She came to my house and asked me why. I told her all the things I had learned about the Mormon beliefs. She acknowledged that they were all true.

When I told her about Joseph Smith’s writings that revealed his belief that Adam was god, she could not deny that either. She said she was familiar with the “Adam/god theory.” I told her I felt that I had been deceived. During the lessons, I was told that the Mormon church is a Christian church–with the same beliefs in God and Jesus as other Christian Churches.

It didn’t end there; members of the church kept calling me and showing up at my door. I kept telling them I was not coming back to the church and to please stop contacting me.

It still didn’t stop. I received phone calls. I received things in the mail-which I marked “return to sender” and left for the Postman. Then, I started receiving things in the mail with no return address-a clear attempt to get me to open the package.

I finally had to write a formal letter to the church–telling them I would consider any further contact harassment—(though I had been harassed, since the moment I told them I was not coming back.)

I was Baptized into the Christian Church again. The whole Mormon experience taught me that blind trust in people and their beliefs can be a dangerous thing.

Now, I look to God. I pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to “distinguish between the spirits,” and to reveal God’s Truth to me. I study the Bible. I study the history of the Church. I participate in Christian Forums.

Yet, at the end of the day, that which I hold as Truth, comes from God, and from God alone.

Perhaps you denied these beliefs, because you do not believe these things. So, I make no judgment concerning your faith or what you actually believe. I have no right to judge anyone. I have simply relayed my experience with the Mormon church.

1 Corinthians 2:11 (ESV) says, “11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

As I said in my post, I hold no ill feelings toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Mormon Church. However, I did have a very traumatic experience with this church.

May God Reveal His Truth to Us All,
Anna

 

[Janet1983]

Another set of questions that come up:

1. • Why are the Temple rites so much like the Masonic rites?
   • Why were those rites “received” shortly after J. Smith became a Master Mason?
   • Why is the BoM called “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” ignoring Galatians 1:8-9?
   • What about the elephants in the BoM?
   • How come people are asked to listen to their heart when the heart is wicked?
   • Why do the BoM and D&C contradict each other in some cases?
   • Why do the BoM and D&C contradict the Bible in some cases?
   • How come the BoM is considered most correct when there have been clear changes while there haven’t been any changes in the Bible?
   • And what about these things established by the BoM…
   • Jesus is the Son of God. 1 Ne 10:17; 11:6-7, 24; 25:16, 19; 31:11-21; Jac 4:5-11; Hel 3:28; 3 Ne 9:15.
   • Jesus is the son of the Father. Al 5:48; 3 Ne 11:7; 12:19; 14:21; 18:27; 28:8, 10; Mro 4:3, 5:2; etc.
   • Jesus is God. Title page; 2 Ne 10:3-7; 11:7; Mos 27:31; Mn 3:21; Eth 3:18; etc.
   • Jesus is the Father. The Eternal Father: Mos 15:4; 16:15; Al 11:38, 39. Father of all things, Father of heaven and earth: 2 Ne 25:12; Mos 3:8; 7:27; 15:4; Al 11:39; Eth 4:7; Hel 14:12; 16:18. Father of the redeemed: Mos 5:7; Eth 3:14.
   • Jesus is both the Father and the Son. Mos 15:2-3; 3 Ne 1:14; Mn 9:12; Eth 3:14; 4:12.
   • Jesus has a father and a God who is a separate and distinct person. Jac 4:5; 3 Ne 11:7, 32; 17:16; 19:18-31; 20:46; 26:2, 15; 27:28-30; Mro 7:27; 9:26.
   Which one is it now?