What is the book of Mormon all about

[zerinus]

There can only be one truth. Either the Mormons are true, one of the protestant sects, the Jews, or the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. One truth. Not everyone can be correct. Only one group is right. I converted to the Catholic church because I believed it was right. I left the LDS faith because I became convinced it was wrong.

Can the other groups have pieces of the truth? Of course, but only one group has the fullness of the truth. I received a witness, backed up by reason, that the Catholic Church is the true church of God.

With all due respect. It doesn’t matter whether neither church recognizes each other’s baptisms. That’s a specious argument. Both churches would reject that you can be “in communion” with both faiths, while affirming the creeds of both. Not that I’ve ever seen you affirm anything but LDS beliefs in any thread you responded to.

In matters of faith, you can’t sit on the fence. I pray you come home to the true church of God.

From the Cathlic point of view, he never stopped being a Catholic when he became a Mormon. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic! So attending Mass from a Catholic point of view is a natural thing for him to do. From the LDS point of view, he hasn’t joned another church. He is simply attending another church, which is not a problem either. So he is free to do whatever he likes, without offendig the rules of either side. That is how it seems to me.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,
LDS missions in the United States continue to be among the leading baptizing LDS missions in the world. Europe has always had lower baptism rates–much lower.

These trends are likely to continue. The Book of Mormon states that all people who came to the Americas at any time during history have been “led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord,” and it is “consecrated unto him whom he shall bring.” (2 Ne. 1:6,7)
The Lord’s purposes in guiding whomever was led to settle here (not just Nephites and Lamanites, not just Israelites) are being fulfilled in our day and will continue to be fulfilled.

If they are baptizing people in the U.S., it sure isn’t happening in the Midwestern states where I live. And the few they do get look like they wouldn’t know the internet from a radio.

 

[Catholic20064]

The culture is not depicted as “massive” or “vast” but rather I would say quite a small culture; they aren’t Jews but are rather from the tribe of Manasseh but only partly so, and before and after the battles the text specifically says the people left are taking everything with them, all the swords and any armor and anything else. The people are described as burying treasures and then not being able to find them again because the land has been cursed or because the people left are stealing everything and nothing can be kept in anyone’s possession–except that Moroni wanders “withersoever he will” to keep out of harm’s way and to eventually engrave more sacred writings while looking to our day knowing there will be the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and his and his father’s prophecies.

This is all typical Mormon evasion of the facts. Firstly, they completely ignore the testimony of prophets from the time of Joseph Smith that all of the Native Americans are descendants of Middle Easterners. Mormons used to say in the Book of Mormon introduction that the “Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” In the Doubleday edition of 2006 it was changed to say “the Lamanites…are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” They know their old theories, supposedly advanced by modern day prophets, have been totally debunked so they change the game. The prophecies in the Book of Mormon regarding the Lamanites are meaningless if the Lamanites are only a small group of people that has essentially died out!

 

[zerinus]

It must be particularly difficult to be a Mormon missionary these days. The Book of Mormon has always been the main selling point for Mormonism. Now when a Mormon missionary is out teaching the Book of Mormon their potential convert will go to the internet and read all of the difficulties we have discussed here. They will read about archeology which shows the Book of Mormon’s claims about horses, sheep, cows, etc. are without merit. They will read about mtDNA studies which show that Native Americans descended from Siberians. They will read studies which show that Native American languages don’t have a Middle Eastern descent. The Mormon missionary in the United States and Europe is having a particularly difficult time converting people these days. There is just too much truthful information out there which shows the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production by Joseph Smith. I notice you hardly ever see intelligent people becoming Mormon these days.

Actually what you are saying here is entirely incorrect. People’s reactions to the Book of Mormon today is the same as it has ever been. Those who are willing to put it to the divine test and obtain a witness of its truth, will accept it and join the Church, regardless of the supposed “scientific” evidence against it. They are not bothered by that. Those who cannot do that won’t join. For the latter group, there has always been plenty “evidence” that they could bring as an excuse against it. The new ones are not a terribly significant addition to the list. If you don’t want to accept the Book of Mormon as true, or do not have the faith to do so, there have always been plenty of excuses you could think of not to.

 

[ParkerD]

This is all typical Mormon evasion of the facts. Firstly, they completely ignore the testimony of prophets from the time of Joseph Smith that all of the Native Americans are descendants of Middle Easterners. Mormons used to say in the Book of Mormon introduction that the “Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” In the Doubleday edition of 2006 it was changed to say “the Lamanites…are among the ancestors of the American Indians.” They know their old theories, supposedly advanced by modern day prophets, have been totally debunked so they change the game. The prophecies in the Book of Mormon regarding the Lamanites are meaningless if the Lamanites are only a small group of people that has essentially died out!

Catholic20064,
I realize that you think there is a “game” going on. I’m not bothered by what some have thought or have written leading to the belief about a “vast” civilization. We have the text of the Book of Mormon itself. That’s where I go to learn what was described and what was prophesied. This is not “evading facts”. It is going to the primary source, period.

 

[Catholic20064]

Catholic20064,
I realize that you think there is a “game” going on. I’m not bothered by what some have thought or have written leading to the belief about a “vast” civilization. We have the text of the Book of Mormon itself. That’s where I go to learn what was described and what was prophesied. This is not “evading facts”. It is going to the primary source, period.

Your interpretation of the Book of Mormon is better than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and all of the other prophets through President Hinckley? In this article you will find several comments from Mormon prophets which make it clear they taught that all Native Americans descended from the ancient Nephites and Lamanites:

irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

Mormon apologists have had to retreat to your position in an effort to claim some credibility for the Book of Mormon, but it is not the position of modern day Mormon prophets. Nor is it really the position of the Book of Mormon which claims the Lamanites would become a great people who would blossom as the rose. They can’t blossom if they don’t exist in any real way.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Mormonism is founded on the revelations of Jesus Christ to Joseph Smith. It is not founded on anything else.

YOU believe that, and I know that YOU believe that, but it was founded on misconceptions of the Catholic church and on DECEIT. You have been fooled. We have shown you time and again on this thread and in others. You refuse to see.

Really, why bother to be here? Go off and be happy with your delusion.

Scientific evidence cannot disprove any religion.

Sure it can. And it has done so with Mormonism. Again, you refuse to see the evidence.

I take that as a sign of your deep frustration and disappointmet at your inability to defeat them.

LOL. So that’s how you view things coming to these forums? Wanting to defeat others to your religion? I think this is more of an indicator of how you view things.

 

[ParkerD]

Your interpretation of the Book of Mormon is better than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and all of the other prophets through President Hinckley? In this article you will find several comments from Mormon prophets which make it clear they taught that all Native Americans descended from the ancient Nephites and Lamanites:

irr.org/mit/lamanites-dna-bom.html

Mormon apologists have had to retreat to your position in an effort to claim some credibility for the Book of Mormon, but it is not the position of modern day Mormon prophets. Nor is it really the position of the Book of Mormon which claims the Lamanites would become a great people who would blossom as the rose. They can’t blossom if they don’t exist in any real way.

Catholic20064,
I can read and think for myself.

Using that primary source and a bit of mathematics, one can start from, say, a hundred Lamanites who may have survived the conquests by outside groups (just a number for starters), then come down through history forty generations, then you have the large disease reductions in population that occurred among the original Americans after the Europeans came (possibly an 80% reduction in population). Fifty times two “average number of children less intermarriages” to the twentieth power equals 970 million times fifty original parents of the origin population if there were no intermarriages. But of course there were intermarriages, so let’s reduce the number by 90% then also reduce by the 80% disease reduction and also by another 75% to factor in the impact of continuous wars among them. That still yields a possible number of 200 million descendants living today, starting from 100 base population of surviving Lamanites back in AD 400.

I have no idea what those numbers really are in place of my hypothetical example, but the point is that there can be enough descendants that Lehi would think it was a significant number of his descendants of whom he could be concerned and have a genuine interest in their receiving the knowledge of Jesus Christ, even starting from a very small base population as of 400 AD.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Po18Guy,
Again, if you have thought I am using this as a “hunting ground” then you are totally mistaken. Christine from Washington is the only Catholic I have encountered in this forum who seemed to have any potential of actually thinking about the subject matter that is brought up, beyond a mere glance and dismissal. I have appreciated her sincerity and respect her firm beliefs. I respect all of the firm beliefs I see expressed here, but folks the LDS church is here to stay and will grow during your lifetime and understanding people is far better than belittling them with unfounded misconceptions. What baffles me is why that concept seems so hard for some people to grasp.

Posts like this one may have something to do with it. Why don’t you take your own advice about understanding and re-read this post.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The words used by Joseph Smith are “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;…they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This was not a statement about “all professing Christians on the face of the earth.” It was a statement very particularly worded about “creeds” and about “professors” who would “teach” which is completely different than “all professing Christians.” This is an example of either blatant misunderstanding of a simple text, or a deliberate misconstrual. Perhaps the authors know which it is. (I assume it is the former.).

I think if you include the part you left out… it can just as easily be seen as referring to all professing Christians.

 

[ParkerD]

Posts like this one may have something to do with it. Why don’t you take your own advice about understanding and re-read this post.

Zaffiroborant,
I also wrote this:
I have actually learned quite a bit about the Catholic beliefs by reading responses to some of my questions or reading explanations of beliefs. I loved a cite by Rebecca about meditating–best thing I’ve read by Catholics except the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins which I always love. I also very much enjoyed a poem about the fall of Adam a week or so ago, and have considered it important to try and understand the framework for several beliefs. You may not consider that important, but I do for the sake of understanding people better, which I sincerely desire to do.

If you’re saying that you do think about the subject matter and were offended that I don’t find much evidence as I read comments that make it look like many do, then I apologize. I respect your beliefs, and how you have arrived at them.

 

[ParkerD]

I think if you include the part you left out… it can just as easily be seen as referring to all professing Christians.

Zaffiroborant,
Here is the complete text in question:
"… that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This is a similar statement to Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Who is doing the teaching? “Professors” and those who teach using “the precept of men” as the basis of their teaching.

 

[jpaul1953]

JPaul1953,
I suppose here we go again. Your study group was a pretty good example of how people, however well-meaning, can come to conclusions based on faulty information that gets perpetuated and cemented into their minds.

Daer Parker,

Tell me where I have been mislead and what the truth is

May God guide us all.

jpaul1953

 

[Jerusha]

Can anyone here diagnose cement-brain syndrome?

Hint: is capable of assimilating multiple contradictory beliefs, and teaching them as truths.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,
Here is the complete text in question:
"… that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This is a similar statement to Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Who is doing the teaching? “Professors” and those who teach using “the precept of men” as the basis of their teaching.

Even this could be interpreted either way.
Who is professing? “This People” , Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me that makes them professors and the teachers “their wise men” are a separate issue and will be dealt with in a different manner.

According to the University of Chicago’s 1828 Webster Dictionary professor means:

**"PROFESS’'OR, n. [L.] One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics."**

The context of JS statement says the first definition is the one being used.

 

[Catholic20064]

Even this could be interpreted either way.
Who is professing? “This People” , Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me that makes them professors and the teachers “their wise men” are a separate issue and will be dealt with in a different manner.

According to the University of Chicago’s 1828 Webster Dictionary professor means:

**"PROFESS’'OR, n. [L.] One who makes open declaration of his sentiments or opinions; particularly, one who makes a public avowal of his belief in the Scriptures and his faith in Christ, and thus unites himself to the visible church.

1. One that publicly teaches any science or branch of learning; particularly, an officer in a university, college or other seminary, whose business is to read lectures or instruct students in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology or mathematics."**

The context of JS statement says the first definition is the one being used.

I believe Parker D’s interpretation reflects the interpretation most Latter-day Saints ascribe to these passages. The LDS take them to mean the ministers of the congregations, not the members. I don’t think outsiders should be allowed to impose their understanding of them when the insiders almost to a person have always understood them to mean the ministers, not the followers. That’s always the way I understood it when I was a Latter-day Saint – the thought never occurred to me that professors meant the followers of the ministers. It always meant the ministers or the teachers of religion.

 

[swplan76]

Zaffiroborant,
Here is the complete text in question:
"… that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Isaiah 29:13
The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.
2Tim. 3:1-5
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— **5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. **

Its interesting how scripture resurfaces in the BOM.

Those two verses have been on my mind for a long time. I didn’t know that they were also present in the BOM. I grew up in a denomination that believes God is waiting for the right time and then He will strike, when we least expect it (but they don’t think much about it). They believe they have found the right denomination and as a result, they are safely among those who will go to heaven. For them that’s all that matters - they follow the rules and put their time in and its ‘all good’… They “have a form of godliness, but deny its power.”

It seems that there are verses that stand out to people as they read scripture. There would be varying explanations as to why these verses are present in the BOM.

A LDS might say that it is because God knows which verses we will remember most and wants us to see His presence in both texts.

A while ago, on the topic of various world religions, I heard someone say, "No one will believe a pure lie. They will see it for what it is. A believable lie is one that starts with some truth. The hearer accepts the truth that is offered first and accepts the information (which is false) that the speaker associates with it. Each world religion is not all bad, otherwise people would see through them. On top of the lie rests some goodness, some truth - that’s why people believe in lies.

This makes me think of that CS Lewis quote we’ve been shooting back and forth about how Satan mostly wants to fatten us up so he can devour us in Hell. Satan just wants to keep us out of God’s hands, so he can have us for eternity.

I’m not saying that I know how God will respond to people who believe the things taught by Joseph Smith. God is just and merciful in a way that none of us can fully comprehend. In Lewis’ last portion of the Narnia Chronicles the story comes to a close as Narnians enter into Heaven. There is a man who was not a believer in Aslan through the course of his life, but worshipped another god. Aslan talks with the man and makes it plain to him. Aslan says that this man was sincere in his devotion and was not polluted by the religion he was raised in and so the whole time, the man was actually worshipping the one true God, even though he had no way of knowing Him. He may have been the one exception. Similarly, in ‘The Great Divorce,’ the narrator only witnesses one person make the decision to leave damnation behind - everyone else, when faced with the reality of Heaven, refuses it. Lewis is careful that we don’t begin to imagine that his ideas are fact - He presents them as maybes. He clearly believes that God is merciful, but doesn’t offer us any definite statements on how far that mercy will extend beyond the invitation of Christ, or if it will at all. In both of Lewis’ texts I’ve listed here, he makes a clear point that God won’t force us to see things as they really are.

The primary disconnect from the Way of Christ for me when looking at LDS theology is in the answer Joseph gets from his prayer. He hears from God that all churches are an abomination to Him and that Joseph should not join any.

One thing that is crystal clear to me is that no one denomination is the right one. I believe that true believers/followers are present in all denominations. I believe that the true church is not defined by the sign on the lawn of the church people attend, but by the way individuals live out the calling they receive. I believe that we should not be seeking the perfect church, but the one and only perfect and holy God. I believe we will always be disappointed if we seek pure divinity among people, but never with God.

Lets imagine that the Lutheran church is the one true church and instead of following the teachings of that denomination, I tell everyone that I am, but my lifestyle is not reflective of the teachings of the church - am I really a follower of that denomination? There will be some sincere followers and some who are insincere.

“They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”
“They have a form of godliness, but deny its power.”

Its likely that there are people among the denomination that I grew up in who are sincere, I just don’t know of any - I suppose its not my job to judge that. The verses above are probably there mostly to remind us not to be those kind of people, to examine ourselves.

(I’m sick and I imagine I have ranted quite a bit - thanks for your patience )

Peace,
SW

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Your idea that Joseph Smith was ever “sentenced” leaves me scratching my head, but is an example of what I had talked about when I said I post here to correct misperceptions. “Sentenced” didn’t happen. Accusations and threats did.

Well Parker, either Smith was a “glass looker” or he wasn’t. Either he was taken to court and tried, legally, or wasn’t. He was, and was found guilty and fined, and told to get out of town. If you don’t want to call this a sentence, I’m fine with that.

Sad Parker, that you have to view legal proceedings against criminal activity as “accusations and threats”. JS made up a whole lot of BS and enacted whole scenes of “discovery”. Yet, nothing was ever discovered in the use of his scrying stone and peering into his hat. It was a fraud Parker, plain and simple.

 

[ParkerD]

swplan,
Thanks for your thoughts in your recent post. I think it made a lot of sense except for the idea that there is not the possibility of what one could call a “true church.” It would have to be a “heart-based” (not “mind-based or wisdom-of-man based”) religion and would have to have the kind of power Isaiah talked about, which I think is the kind of power that Moses had–revelatory power and priesthood power to exercise authority in God’s name.

I think CS Lewis had a lot of inspiration behind his writings. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ParkerD]

Well Parker, either Smith was a “glass looker” or he wasn’t.

Rebecca,
I assume this is the court record:

"State of New York v. Joseph Smith.

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor.

Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having anything to do with this business.

Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did 'possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it, but got a p— [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowel's house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a man's head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill.

Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to book, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.

McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark coloured stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know there it was; and that prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging, that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, 19c. Complaint upon oath, 25 1/2c. Seven witnesses, 87 1/2c. Recognisances, 25c. Mittimus, 19c. Recognisances of witnesses, 75c. Subpoena, 18c. - $2.68."

---

If the $2.68 was the fine for the misdemeanor, then I suppose you can think it important, but I don’t. If you thought I thought Joseph Smith was perfect, then you were wrong.