The Book of Mormons and the Bible

[wussup]

Regarding the “don’t add to or take away from the words…” in the Bible. I had an interesting experience with this verse while serving in South Africa. My companion and I went on ‘splits’ with two local teenaged boys (Aaronic Priesthood holders). I had been wanting to visit with the local Dominee (Dutch Reformed Church Minister, a man with a DD Doctor of Divinity) but my companion would not go. So the youngster and I went. The Dominee invited me in, set us down, and, with his family present, began our conversation with the Revelation quote you mention. I took a drink, looked at him and smiled sadly. “Oh, Dominee, I am so sorry you mentioned that”. He looked at me satisfied. I continued, “Sir, you are either extremely ignorant, or a liar”. His and his families jaws fell open. It was really quite comical. “As a Doctor of Divinity, surely you know the 2nd and 3rd Books of John were written after Revelation, and if your theory is correct, these books should not be in your Bible”. His jaw shut, I added, “Oh, you did know that, but tried to use and IMPROPER interpretation” (emphasis not in original). Our visit ended shortly after that. This illustrates not only that that use of Revelation is not appropriate for the application, but that scripture can be misinterpreted without even going out of english.

 

[Allweather]

Allweather;
Why do you put ‘belief’ in “”? That is the business of religion, establishing ‘belief’. I arrived at my answer independent of the Church.

I will respond quickly, as I am short of time right now, yet don’t want you to feel that I am ignoring you.

For now, I’d like to limit the question to that of the so-called Mormon charge of The Great Apostasy against Christianity. It seems to me, and I gather you would agree, that Mormonism, as well as the several other cults which also claim a universal apostasy, rests upon the truth or lie of this charge. If it be a false charge, then Mormonism and the other cults are false, as I say.

After all, we aren’t talking about faith in God, right now. We are talking about faith in the Great Apostasy. Mormons claim that the apostasy is real. But, in the absence of evidence, actually in the FACE of evidence to the contrary, Mormons maintain the fact of the apostasy as a “belief” rather than a concrete reality that can be evidenced from history, and that is the sense in which I mean “belief.” It is also a matter of “common sense,” as my ex-Mormon fiance affirms. Common sense argues strongly against the charge of universal apostasy against the Catholic/Christain Church. One can “believe” anything one wants to believe. But genuine faith rests upon logic and common sense, as well as acceptance of those things of faith that cannot be reconciled with logic, except by means of faith.

It isn’t logical, or in accord with common sense, to “believe” that an apostate church, without divine authority, without a valid priesthood, converted to Jesus the barbarians and other invaders of Europe as the Roman Empire collapsed. Kept learning, and the kernal of the gospel alive through the centuries of the so-called “Dark Ages.” Sailed to America in wooden ships to convert the savages. Wrote the great music, carved the great sculptures, painted the great paintings, built the great cathedrals, survived intact for 2 millenia and is still very much alive and healthy, etc. etc. etc. To “believe” that apostate people did these things, and many more than I have time to describe here, is to believe a lie, a lie that can be easily discerned by anyone looking for the truth, rather than to build up an incomprehensible religion.

I will respond the the remainder of your post later today, as I have time. Thank you.

 

[Allweather]

…This illustrates not only that that use of Revelation is not appropriate for the application, but that scripture can be misinterpreted without even going out of english.

Absolutely! We probably agree that a church is needed to provide meaning for scripture. The sola scriptura argument, it seems to me, is an area in which Mormons and Catholics agree. The question really is, which church is the valid one. An invalid church is separate from the historical Church that preceded it by some 1800 years. This can be known and seen from history alone. It can also be seen and known because the invalid church leads to further separation from that ancient one. Anything, whether church, “modern scripture,” interpretations of valid scripture, re-writing of scripture, etc, which lead AWAY from unity, the unity so ardently prayed-for by Jesus, is false. Unity. Don’t leave Earth without it.

As for the comparisons between 1 thru 3 John, and the Revelation of John: I am not a Bible expert, and do not pretend to be one. I usually avoid arguments about Scripture. However, isn’t it true that these are different types of writing? Isn’t the Revelation a very different type of literature than 1 thru 3 John? Wouldn’t this difference affect the argument you say you made? Why would the chronological order of their writing have anything to do with the neither-add-to-nor-take-away-from issue?

 

[Erich]

Erich, if you are going to bash another religion, make sure you read the entirety of your sources. It can prove embarrasing.

Bash? No, just pointing out that the previous poster was not the first person to perceive that the BoM is a parody of the Bible; Mark Twain said basically the same thing in his own rough-hewn way, back in 1870 or so, in his book Roughing It (click here to read what else Twain had to say about the BoM).

I’m also not bashing Mormonism when I ask questions I haven’t received satisfactory answers to… questions such as those asked in Problems with the Book of Mormon and Mormon Stumpers and the flat-out contradiction identified in Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead.

 

[wussup]

Allweather;
I am an ex-salesman come truck driver. Very successful at IBM and Xerox, I realized that as a general rule I dislike brown-nosying customers and hated sales and went into trucking. What that mean for our conversations is I have a low-patronizing acceptance level. If by ‘cult’ you reference the latin derivation cultus, or care denoting a particular system of worship [dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult]](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult]) (one that will also apply to Catholics, Methodists, etc., i.e., cultus of the Blessed Virgin), then I will accept that. However, if you are using the term as a derogative misdefinition of Walter Martin or the sociological term referencing an organization using mind altering and ‘brainwashing’ techniques to imprison members living outside of conventional society, these I reject. Clearly, you are using the term as a derogatory. If our discussion is not going to one of respect, without ad hominem attacks, it will be very one sided, and I will not participate.

Rev 22:18-19 (If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him…And if any man shall take away from the words…) is often used by anti-Mormons, and to a lesser extent, anti-Catholics, to ‘prove’ the Book of Mormon having been ‘written’ after the Book of Revelation, is false. However, if there are other books chronologically written after the Book of Revelation, that argument is clearly false.

I beg to differ (as apparantly do you since you then begin to do nothing but discuss Faith), but our discussion is ONLY about faith. Ultimately, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God; and that it is only through Him and His Sacrifice for us that we can be saved. The apostacy is a red herring. There is more than enough evidence to prove an apostacy occured. Arguably, one of the Greatest Monks who ever lived was so convinced of the Apostacy he started the Lutheran Church. Our discussion (philosophically speaking, argument) then is not whether or not the Bible prophesied apostacy occured, but whether or not it was restored or renovated. We claim a restoration, you claim a renovation. If there was a renovation, when was it and how am I to know it is of God. I must mosie on down the road and will check in later. Please attempt to keep ad hominems from our discussion and rationally address my questions as well. For example, you have not answered my question; have you read the Book of Mormon, and approached God with humility and a willingness to obey in prayer if the teachings of the Book of Mormon are true?

 

[Allweather]

Clearly, you are using the term as a derogatory. If our discussion is not going to one of respect, without ad hominem attacks, it will be very one sided, and I will not participate.

That’s fine. Take it as you like. I am no friend of Mormonism. I have loved ones who are Mormons and ex-Mormons. I’ve seen the damage done. I will not pretend to accept Mormon apologetics as equal with those of Christianity. Mormonism is the cult of Joseph Smith. Mormons are not, in my opinion, “brainwashed.” But Mormonism uses devious tactics in trying to convert people. It doesn’t present the full truth of its history, the polygamy, the murders, the arrogance, but rather presents itself as a lovely little religion about Family Home Evening, food storage, and pie in the sky ideas about becoming gods, which BTW are blasphemous.

I beg to differ (as apparantly do you since you then begin to do nothing but discuss Faith), but our discussion is ONLY about faith. Ultimately, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God; and that it is only through Him and His Sacrifice for us that we can be saved.

This has nothing to do with my faith in Jesus, or yours. This has to do with Mormon claims that Christianity went UNIVERSALLY apostate, and remains so today. I ask for evidence. All you can do so far is to “believe” in it. Evidence requires more than that.

The apostacy is a red herring. There is more than enough evidence to prove an apostacy occured. Arguably, one of the Greatest Monks who ever lived was so convinced of the Apostacy he started the Lutheran Church.

Are you invoking the bones of Luther as a proponent of the Great Apostasy? Even if you are, Luther could hardly be considered an authority. An excommunicated heretic from the True Church evidences nothing except heresy and foolhardiness. You’ll need to dig a little deeper for your historical evidence. At least, give us more info about Luther. You seem to be something of an expert on him.

Our discussion (philosophically speaking, argument) then is not whether or not the Bible prophesied apostacy occured, but whether or not it was restored or renovated. We claim a restoration, you claim a renovation.

I don’t know what you mean by the word “renovation.” I’ve never heard that used in this context before. Please explain. And, I’m not talking about prophetic inferences from the Bible about apostasy. Apostasy has always existed within the church. No one could intelligently argue otherwise. The question isn’t whether there are and have been sinners. The question is whether the priesthood was lost, and if it was, the hard, credible, tangible, written, historical evidence of this having taken place. If it is nothing but a belief on your part, then it must be put away, alongside the other unorthodox “beliefs” of Mormonism, such as polygamy, multiplicity of gods, pre-existence, eternal progression, Kolob, etc.

you have not answered my question; have you read the Book of Mormon, and approached God with humility and a willingness to obey in prayer if the teachings of the Book of Mormon are true?

I’m familiar enough with the BoM to know what it contains, but no, I do not study it, and cannot stand to read it. I do not like fiction. I don’t read any kinds of fiction, now that I’m grown up. When I was a kid, I loved science fiction, and read enough of it to recognize it when I see it. I see the BoM as mediocre science fiction. As far as my faith life, no need to question that: I know why I am a Catholic, and that in and of itself defines my innoculation against diseases of the spirit.

 

[hosemonkey]

“I’m familiar enough with the BoM to know what it contains, but no, I do not study it, and cannot stand to read it. I do not like fiction. I don’t read any kinds of fiction, now that I’m grown up. When I was a kid, I loved science fiction, and read enough of it to recognize it when I see it. I see the BoM as mediocre science fiction. As far as my faith life, no need to question that: I know why I am a Catholic, and that in and of itself defines my innoculation against diseases of the spirit.”

Right on!! My thoughts exactly. Even a cursory study of Mormonism will reveal the magnitude of the fraud. In all fairness, I have to give 'ol Joe Smith credit for a fantastic imagination. He surpasses even L. Ron Hubbard in his ability to create a whole world out of his fantasies. Of course he was assisted by plenty of plagiarism from the KJV and maybe a little home-grown weed when afflicted by writer’s block, just to get him over the rough spots. The BOM is so full of both historical as well as theological holes that no serious scholar takes it seriously, except maybe as a curiousity of the religious fervor that swept over eastern america in the early years of the 19th century. Momonism is based on a fraud and a fantasy and not on fact. Looking at a “peepstone” in his hat? Golden plates conveniently lost? Magic glasses? Faaaaaar out! Amazes me that otherwise intelligent people would fall for it. P.T. Barnum was right!

 

[wussup]

Bash? No, just pointing out that the previous poster was not the first person to perceive that the BoM is a parody of the Bible; Mark Twain said basically the same thing in his own rough-hewn way, back in 1870 or so, in his book Roughing It (click here to read what else Twain had to say about the BoM).
Bashing a religion you are doing, in this case, mine. Rather than pretending to be Socrates and only ask questions, why don’t you address the subject YOU brought up. To wit, please address the entirety of Gardner’s response to Twain’s observation. I understand that debating a subject actually requires intellectual curiosity and honesty. Give it a try…

 

[wussup]

I’ve seen the damage done.

Spare me. The damage done? Pray tell…

I will not pretend to accept Mormon apologetics as equal with those of Christianity.

You are correct, I am surprised. LDS apologetics is far superior to non-LDS apologetics.

Mormonism is the cult of Joseph Smith. Mormons are not, in my opinion, “brainwashed.” But Mormonism uses devious tactics in trying to convert people. It doesn’t present the full truth of its history, the polygamy, the murders, the arrogance, but rather presents itself as a lovely little religion about Family Home Evening, food storage, and pie in the sky ideas about becoming gods, which BTW are blasphemous.

"The cult of Joseph Smith…According to the American Heritage Dictionary,
cult (kŭlt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
   The object of such devotion.
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
   The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
The object of such devotion.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

Looking at this individually…

1. We have no individual charismatic leader with whom we follow, nope…not a cult according to df 1
2. After almost 200 years on earth, LDS are clearly not a fad. However we do worship our Father in Heaven and His only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Still, I don’t know that members technically obsess over this…so nope, not a cult of ‘Joseph Smith’, (maybe a cult of Jesus Christ)? per df 2
3. While we do have a system of worship et. al., never is the name or persona of Joseph Smith invoked. We do not celebrate his status (as Catholics do with various Saints), in fact, I don’t even know his birthday. Our worship et. al., invokes the name and authority of Jesus Christ. So, by df. we could be considered a (or the) Cult of Jesus Christ, but certainly not Joseph Smith).

Tell me how you can call the Church a cult given the proper definition. You say you are an adult (makes me think of Hamlet III, II), then act an adult and address your claim with honesty and integrity. Under what definition do you say I am a cultist?

 

[wussup]

Re Martin Luther. Are you aware of Martin Luthers beef with the Catholic Church? Do you know how the Catholic Church responded to his action? I suspect not. Make it worth the time to respond to your ad hominem attacks. I am not going to teach you about the reprehensible history of the Catholic Church over the centuries. My point is I believe the Catholic Church has been going through a renovation, correcting past wrongs, for a long time. If you are unaware of this, I find this shocking.

 

[wussup]

First, tell me about your faith. I ask this in all honesty. You said you know why you are Catholic. Tell me about it. Why are you Catholic? PLEASE, please, am not being sarcastic, bating, or childish. I love to hear the testimony of others. Just because you are not LDS does not mean you don’t have a testimony of Jesus, and furthermore, I will take it seriously and cherish it in spirit you give it.

Re: Have you read the B of M. Again, the childish thing. Are you claiming to be to old to read fiction? Jesus read fiction. His parables are examples of great teachings told in the format of a story. You are being silly to claim such a thing, and anyone who gives you a hurrah for displaying such an attitude to what is clearly an immature thing to say. Do you know what chiasmus is?

 

[wussup]

<…he was assisted by plenty of plagiarism from the KJV>
Really, care to define plagiarism, oh ye of the ad hominem?
Really, perhaps you can address Gardners interesting find (see previous postings). Do you know what Chiasmus is, and why serious scholars are looking at the B of M because of it?
…

 

[truthsilence]

Wussup said:

We do not celebrate his status… in fact, I don’t even know his birthday

**You obviously don’t live in Utah. **

This year has been a grand birthday party for the prophet Joseph Smith. December 23 is the culminating celebration. It will be 200 years since this remarkable man was born. His life has changed the world.

It has been a year of renewed attention to his life and times. It has been a year of gifts. **Members of the Church throughout the world have honored him **with words, music, dance, and song. He has been celebrated in myriad wards and stakes. He has been the subject of scholarly explorations, musical theater, new books, literature, videos and motion pictures.

cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=5974238631232&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE6

In December 2005, LDS faithful celebrated the 200th Birthday of Joseph Smith. I personally heard several active LDS members complain about all the attention given to Joseph that Christmas. His Birthday celebration seemed to trump even Jesus’. It was annoying and unsettling, even for them.

 

[hosemonkey]

<…he was assisted by plenty of plagiarism from the KJV>
Really, care to define plagiarism, oh ye of the ad hominem?
Really, perhaps you can address Gardners interesting find (see previous postings). Do you know what Chiasmus is, and why serious scholars are looking at the B of M because of it?
…

Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.
Whole blocks of text are lifted from the KJV and inserted into the BOM. Very often little or no modification is made to the text. That’s stealing. As to the historicity of the BOM, where are the archeological proofs for the BOM. There are none. Great battle at Hill Cumorah? Where are the bones? Where are the swords? Where are the thousands of arrowheads? Even today, some 2400 years after the battle of Marathon, arrowheads can still be found on the battlefield. And weren’t the indians surprised when they found out that they were actually Jews? Mormonism is a hoax that got far out of hand, so 'ol Joe Smith decided to see if he could make a buck out of it. And it was also very fortuitous that his revelation on plural marriage happened along just in time to take care of his inordinate interest in other men’s wives.

 

[wussup]

Yur are correct. Can you be specific. Whose writing was plagiarized?

 

[zerinus]

Yur are correct. Can you be specific. Whose writing was plagiarized?

Leave them alone. They be blind guides leading the blind.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

Okay, I have to respond here:

I will not pretend to accept Mormon apologetics as equal with those of Christianity.

You are correct, I am surprised. LDS apologetics is far superior to non-LDS apologetics.

please… that’s like saying the Catholics have the best hymnal. I’m Catholic and know the baptist hold that dostinction. apologetics is not a mormon forte as evidenced by FAIR and FARMS and jefflindsay. If you want to say your religion is true then that’s one thing but I certainly can’t see much in the way of apologetics. the LDS teaching is and has been that apologetics is basically unnecessary because all you need is a testimony and the spirit will do the rest.

/snip/

Looking at this individually…

1. We have no individual charismatic leader with whom we follow, nope…not a cult according to df 1

you honestly don’t see Joseph Smith as a charismatic leader? tell us about the subject of the first discussion that LDS missionaries give. every time Gordon B Hinckley appears you sing “we thank thee Oh God for a prophet” just like hail to the chief is played for the president. I think this one is obvious.

1. After almost 200 years on earth, LDS are clearly not a fad. However we do worship our Father in Heaven and His only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Still, I don’t know that members technically obsess over this…so nope, not a cult of ‘Joseph Smith’, (maybe a cult of Jesus Christ)? per df 2

how so? a fad can last a long time and Mormonism is starting to wane. I would challenge the worship of Jesus since Mormons do not even pray to him. EVER! how much worship and praise is given to GOD the Father in an LDS service? where is the lords prayer that Jesus instructed us to pray?
those of us who have been LDS know full well the teaching that no ne gets to heaven without the approval of Joseph Smith.

1. While we do have a system of worship et. al., never is the name or persona of Joseph Smith invoked. We do not celebrate his status (as Catholics do with various Saints), in fact, I don’t even know his birthday. Our worship et. al., invokes the name and authority of Jesus Christ. So, by df. we could be considered a (or the) Cult of Jesus Christ, but certainly not Joseph Smith).

I’ll give you the first one. Mormons do not ever invoke Joseph Smith nor is he prayed to. The second? I disagree strongly. How often does your ward sing “praise to the man”? his birthday celebration is big in Utah. as to the last, I find it somewhat problematic that you pray in the name of Jesus but never to him and the Holy Spirit has no place in Mormon worship outside of baptism.

Tell me how you can call the Church a cult given the proper definition. You say you are an adult (makes me think of Hamlet III, II), then act an adult and address your claim with honesty and integrity. Under what definition do you say I am a cultist?

I think the above could bolster a case but hey cult is often misused and misunderstood and maybe we would be better off not using that term in this discussion but I will say that Mormon doctrine is false. I think it obvious just from common sense in some areas. (BoA, BoM, Joseph Smith polygamy, D&C) I think it easily proven false by scripture (the Bible, especially the letter to the Hebrews and 2 Peter) and sacred tradition. (how can you understand scripture without knowing about those who wrote it, who they were writing to and why?) There is no evidence of a complete, global apostasy. There is written evidence showing continuity of Christian teaching from the apostolic age to the present that would seem to disprove the great apostasy. There is no evidence that any uniquely mormon doctrines or practices are a restoration of any original Christian ones. There is ample evidence that many uniquely mormon doctrines and practices are (if not all) of modern origin. You mention Chiasmus as causing “many serious scholars” to look at the BoM. Who? and what exactly are they looking for? this is no better than the 70’s claims that archaeologists and anthropologists were looking at the BoM to explain pre-Colombian civilizations.

Come on now let’s speak truth. You did what it said in Alma and tried believing as if it were true and then you did the Moroni thing and prayed and whatever feeling you got then you assumes was your sign and now you believe because of that testimony. Well and good. just don’t try to say that there was logic or analysis or evidence involved. Sole Fide applies to mormonism. I pray that your eyes will be opened like mine were and you will quit following the magical scams of a known philandering con man and worship the one true God.

 

[hosemonkey]

Yur are correct. Can you be specific. Whose writing was plagiarized?

the book plagiarizes extensively from the various authors of the books of the Bible.

Joseph copied sections from Isaiah, Matthew, Luke, Paul’s letters, etc. For example, in Galatians 5:1 Paul wrote “stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.” This same phrase appears in the Book of Mormon, prior to the time of Christ. Alma 58:40 reads "stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has made them free."The Old Testament has no mention of Jesus Christ by name, or the Christian concept of baptism. Yet these are an integral part of the Nephite religion during the period before Christ. For instance, in approximately 550 B.C. God instructs the Nephites “repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son” (2 Nephi 31:11).

Also, the Book of Mormon repeatedly borrows phrases from the New Testament (King James Version). The problem is that these are found throughout the Book of Mormon prior to Christ’s birth and prior to the writing of the New Testament. Below are three examples of how Smith wove together parts of the Bible to make his new scriptures. The parallel biblical phrases are in brackets. In Alma 5:48 (about 83 B.C.) we read:

. . . I know that Jesus Christ [John 1:17] shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father [John 1:14], full of grace, and mercy, and truth [John 1:14]. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world [John 1:29], yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name [John 1:12].

Supposedly written about 550 B.C., Jacob declared:

And he commandeth all men that they must repent [Acts 17:30], and be baptized in his name [Acts 19:5], having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel [Isaiah 43:3], or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God [Acts 8:12]. (2 Nephi 9:23)

Compare the following Book of Mormon passage with the Bible:

Mosiah 5:15 [about 121 B.C.] Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, . . .

1 Corinthians 15: 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.(from Utah Lighthouse)

Plagiarism is blatant and shameless. Easy to prove. Not to mention the anachronisms found throuhout the text.

 

[hosemonkey]

Leave them alone. They be blind guides leading the blind.

zerinus

We had a saying, Zerinus… “The flak is heaviest right over the target.” Don’t cut and run when this discussion is just now getting interesting. Hard fact trumps a"burning in the bosom" any day.

 

[hosemonkey]

“Come on now let’s speak truth. You did what it said in Alma and tried believing as if it were true and then you did the Moroni thing and prayed and whatever feeling you got then you assumes was your sign and now you believe because of that testimony. Well and good. just don’t try to say that there was logic or analysis or evidence involved. Sole Fide applies to mormonism. I pray that your eyes will be opened like mine were and you will quit following the magical scams of a known philandering con man and worship the one true God.”

Right on majik275!
According to Mormon apologists, the cult is growing by leaps and bounds. The numbers put forth by these people are truly impressive, but they never tell you the true story of how most of their recruits do not stay the course. Most converts are not involved in the Mormon church(?) for any appreciable length of time. And once you get your name on the membership rolls, it is like leaving the Mafia to get your name off. So the numbers grow. A faith based on an emotion or a “burning in the bosom” is built on sand and has no strength. Faith is built on both head and heart. Mormons are not encouraged to question or inquire, because too much inquiry into Mormonism will lead to either apostacy or atheism.