Who wrote the Book of Mormon and where did it come from?

[why_me]

That is hardly a problem with the Bible (or God ), but shows the need for an authoritative interpreter, whether one believes that to be the Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, or whatever church.

Yes, an authoritative interpreter. And who grants one the authority? And what is an authoritative interpreter? A learned man or woman? You need to read more Kempis.

And I may add that the Taliban claim to be the authoritive interpreters of the Koran…and by this we can see where authority leads.

 

[why_me]

The discussion on the tow sticks I find quite interesting, and I see it going somewhere. I have been following along passively and learning some interesting points. Both Parker and T.A have covered some good ground and I can say I’ve found it quite enjoyable. If you don’t like it, ignore the conversation and find another one to comment on, but don’t speak for me when you say “this is going nowhere” when in actuality it is a good example of productive debate and discussion between two people. So Shhhhhhh…Quiet down the grownups are speaking I’m trying to listen.

Since we are on a catholic answers board there is a common tendency to prove all others wrong and defend the faith. But actually, no faith is defended with a learned discussion. It only shows who is more learned or who is better at the use of words and knowledge. It means nothing more. It is sort of a mental fencing game with posters attempting to strike a point here or there and gain the high ground. But in the end, regardless of who wins the match, nothing is proved except that the other is a more skilled swordsmen or in this case a more skilled debater.

And that is why Kempis claims that love in action is more important than a thousand words.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Yes, but here is the point. A theory is a theory and has nothing to do with truth. For example, if I say that I have a theory about how the Koran came to be, it does not make it true. It is just a theory. All the books that you mentioned including the bible have people claiming theories about how they came to be. But what theory is truth or if any of the theories are true, needs to be proven. And no critic has proven their theory true about the book of mormon. Now of course, I can have a theory. But that doesn’t mean much. But going about validating the theory is a much harder enterprise.

Actually, here is the real point. A theory is a theory, and those that sustain a theory believe that it is the truth. In science, many things that we believe are “true” are actually theories that have very strong surrounding support. Because of this, depending on the strength of the theory, alternatives to explain the same phenomenon are many times developed and sustained as the truth by others.

Similarly, there are theories as to the origins of the Book of Mormon. The Mormon church believes its own theories, and again, they cannot be proven (especially since this is religion we’re talking about, where FAITH is the most important common denominator among all religions). Mormon apologists will put forward their own surrounding evidences (that you like to copy and paste here) that they believe prove the truth of that theory. Likewise, Mormon critics have their own theories as to the origins of the Book of Mormon, which non-Mormon apologists support with their own surrounding evidences. Therefore, based on those evidences, one can choose to align with either theory, and believe it is the truth. So, to you, it is “difficult” to disprove the Book of Mormon. To others, it is not so difficult. Just because Mormon apologists put forth “refutations” of critical views does not mean that it is accepted as such by everyone, and vice versa. This is how it goes for every theory that is believed to be the truth in every field, whether science, religion, mathematics, etc.

For example, if I am an atheist and claim that the bible is a fairy tale. You may claim that the bible is the word of god. It is up and it is up to you to prove it. And unfortunately, it can not be done. But certainly science is claiming to make inroads in proving the bible a fairy tale. But…it can never be certain that it is. It only can produce what it considers to be evidence that humans were not divinely created.

See above. To you, it cannot be done. To others, surrounding evidences help to point towards the truth of the belief. And belief is the correct word here, since religion is founded on faith. Religion is similar to science in many ways. Also, you claim that science is claiming to make inroads in proving the Bible a fairy tale, while many others claim that science is making inroads in proving the truth of Biblical events.

Can you prove god’s existence? Can you prove the bible true? No. Can you prove the book of mormon not true? No. But we are free to believe what we want to believe…until prove tells us otherwise.

See above. Proof is in the surrounding evidence provided. People will have to weigh both sides of evidence (and, in religion, faith/prayer is part of this), and when they do, they can make a decision. Mormons do this and claim that the Book of Mormon is true. Others like myself do this and claim that the Book of Mormon is fiction. Therefore, we have discussions here that you apparently think are pointless and lead to nowhere. Others do not believe so, so you can feel free to go elsewhere for discussions with points.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Yes, an authoritative interpreter. And who grants one the authority? And what is an authoritative interpreter? A learned man or woman? You need to read more Kempis.

And I may add that the Taliban claim to be the authoritive interpreters of the Koran…and by this we can see where authority leads.

In various hierarchical churches, such as the Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS Churches, we believe that individuals can not only understand scripture personally (through private revelation (or personal revelation in the LDS Church), but that Church authorities (whatever they are believed to be in each Church) give the “official” and authoritative views of what Scripture means. Obviously we all disagree on who has that authority, however the point is that the problem is not with God or the Bible, as you stated earlier.

And your Taliban reference is irrelevant. That is not where authority leads, and that is an intellectually dishonest argument to make. There are extremes in all things, and the extremes are not representative of the entire concept, so your Taliban reference is pointless.

 

[why_me]

In various hierarchical churches, such as the Catholic, Orthodox, and LDS Churches, we believe that individuals can not only understand scripture personally (through private revelation (or personal revelation in the LDS Church), but that Church authorities (whatever they are believed to be in each Church) give the “official” and authoritative views of what Scripture means. Obviously we all disagree on who has that authority, however the point is that the problem is not with God or the Bible, as you stated earlier.

And your Taliban reference is irrelevant. That is not where authority leads, and that is an intellectually dishonest argument to make. There are extremes in all things, and the extremes are not representative of the entire concept, so your Taliban reference is pointless.

Actually, the problem is with god. Because the bible is open to interpretation, we seem to have many authorities. His prophets could have written a more exact book. Also, those that claim to be authorities, are usually not an authority. Since no one can know the mind of god or his prophets as contained in the bible. We can only make guesses and call them inspiration. And so then it becomes an interpretation of whose inspiration is correct. It seems like a terrible treadmill or a hamster wheel.

In terms of the Taliban it is very relevant. When a group takes an authoritive position, it usually means other positions are not respected or these positions are even oppressed. We can see this at the time of the Inquistion where so called authorities treated those who did not agree with them rather harshly.

 

[Kdesiel]

Since we are on a catholic answers board there is a common tendency to prove all others wrong and defend the faith. But actually, no faith is defended with a learned discussion. It only shows who is more learned or who is better at the use of words and knowledge. It means nothing more. It is sort of a mental fencing game with posters attempting to strike a point here or there and gain the high ground. But in the end, regardless of who wins the match, nothing is proved except that the other is a more skilled swordsmen or in this case a more skilled debater.

And that is why Kempis claims that love in action is more important than a thousand words.

Well I find a good debate and discussion is a valuable tool for understanding people. Especially people of different faiths. I love those discussions. It is fascinating to me to see the different interpretations on the scripture; I love the different points of view and what they offer in supporting their views.
If this means nothing more to you than an exchange of words and you fail to see the value of a well thought out and civil discussion/debate may I suggest you do yourself and others on the board a favor? Take the advice of Kempis, save your words, and go out and DO some acts of Charity and Love and leave the discussions to those of us who care, find value, and have something of substance to impart on the issues at hand.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Actually, the problem is with god. Because the bible is open to interpretation, we seem to have many authorities. His prophets could have written a more exact book. Also, those that claim to be authorities, are usually not an authority. Since no one can know the mind of god or his prophets as contained in the bible. We can only make guesses and call them inspiration. And so then it becomes an interpretation of whose inspiration is correct. It seems like a terrible treadmill or a hamster wheel.

Actually, this is not a problem with God, since everything is subject to interpretation. Because of this, an authoritative interpreter is needed. The issue then is whether one believes that Church authorities are needed, are whether each person can interpret it however they want to. With the fruits of Protestantism, we can see which view of Scripture interpretation makes more sense. It is not necessary to “know the mind of God” to be an authoritative interpreter. Please read more on this issue.

In terms of the Taliban it is very relevant. When a group takes an authoritive position, it usually means other positions are not respected or these positions are even oppressed. We can see this at the time of the Inquistion where so called authorities treated those who did not agree with them rather harshly.

You really need to refine your arguments. The Taliban is an example of an extreme authoritative position (and can be compared to authoritarian vs. authoritative parenting). Again, the extremes of an issue are not representative of the entirety of that position, and it is completely illogical to say, look at the Taliban, this is why authority is bad. Authority is extremely important in all aspects of life, from government, schooling, to parenting, and if you are really saying that the Taliban is a relevant example of why authority is bad, then you have not thought this issue through. I would love to see a world with no respect to authority, where everyone can do what they want, because they feel like it. Clearly your Taliban and Inquisition examples are irrelevant.

 

[ParkerD]

Actually, this is not a problem with God, since everything is subject to interpretation. Because of this, an authoritative interpreter is needed. The issue then is whether one believes that Church authorities are needed, are whether each person can interpret it however they want to. With the fruits of Protestantism, we can see which view of Scripture interpretation makes more sense. It is not necessary to “know the mind of God” to be an authoritative interpreter. Please read more on this issue.
…

ThuriferAcolyte,
I apologize to any who may wish that the discussion involved here not be interrupted by a comment from someone else, but obviously if so they can skip my comment.

I appreciate having had the discussion with you about Ezekiel 37. I learned from it, and enjoyed reading your perspective and lucid presentation.

I have thought more about that subject, and understand the ensuing discussion about “authority” (which certainly need not digress to “authoritarianism”) when reading and trying to understand and apply Biblical scripture.

The examples we both cited show that the Bible had other words that conveyed a clearer meaning (“rod” in Numbers 17, and “roll of a book” in Jeremiah 36 and Ezekiel 2-3.) If we have the basic premise that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then He could have inspired Ezekiel to use a word that would be unambiguously translatable, and could have used the same wording as in Numbers 17 where Moses was told to “write every man’s name upon his rod.”

That would have brought a completely clear meaning to the passage in Ezekiel 37. But instead the wording used was “write upon it (the stick or “wood”), For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:”
and thus we have the conundrum particularly because of the word “for” since that would not necessarily mean that Ezekiel is going to take a stick and write the words “for Judah” and another stick and write the words “for Joseph” on those pieces of wood. The word “for” can create a larger meaning (I hope you can see that). (If a person is asked to write a message “for a certain group of people” the wording that conveys that request can be: “write for this named group of people” meaning either “write in their behalf” or “write in their honor” or “write directing the message to this group” or “write with this group in mind”.)

So we are left, if we acknowledge the conundrum, with uncertainty as to the meaning, and thus are left with either an appeal to authority or an appeal to God directly, since He obviously knew exactly what He intended to have been understood.

I think this is an example where one can use the prevailing “authority” they personally trust, and think they are justified and that God will be completely in agreement with that approach. But I personally think that God created several instances within the Bible where the ambiguity/conundrum/uncertainty was deliberate, and it was not just so that an authority can be appealed to and everyone else has to fall in line with that prevailing opinion. Why not believe that God really wants to put humankind to the test of whether we will indeed “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Matthew 7:7,8) Why not trust that God really does intend for humankind to ask Him questions that have specific answers and that He will answer?

This opportunity to ask and receive an answer is taught so many times by the Savior that it is a prevailing teaching. He doesn’t say to ask the church or to ask the rabbi or to ask the Pharisees or to ask the apostles. He says to ask God.

This is completely in agreement with the intent that God surely has on this earth of granting complete “free agency” to humankind. If God did not deliberately allow for those kinds of conundrums within the Bible, then He did it accidentally and that of course is inconsistent with a perfect, all-knowing and all-loving Father in Heaven. By providing those kinds of conundrums, He provides opportunities for differing interpretations, appeals to “authority” and “reason” and “tradition”, yet all the while allowing completely uncompelled freedom of choice in the matter.

I can choose to ask God directly, and when I get an answer, all the world can attempt to dissuade me or say I don’t know what I’m talking about, but if I know how God communicates (as He has promised very clearly that He will) and if I have received His answer, then absolutely no amount of dissonance to the contrary will presuade me in the slightest.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I apologize to any who may wish that the discussion involved here not be interrupted by a comment from someone else, but obviously if so they can skip my comment.

I appreciate having had the discussion with you about Ezekiel 37. I learned from it, and enjoyed reading your perspective and lucid presentation.

I have thought more about that subject, and understand the ensuing discussion about “authority” (which certainly need not digress to “authoritarianism”) when reading and trying to understand and apply Biblical scripture…etc.

I agree ParkerD, I also enjoyed our discussion, and I did learn more about where Mormons are coming from as far as understanding Ezekiel 37 in the context of your worldview. I apologize if I come across as “snippy” sometimes, but I really do appreciate having these discussions with you and dianaiad (in contrast to copy/paste from exmormon.com or FAIR).

Yes, I do see Numbers 17, and elsewhere where similar terminology is used. I do believe that in all cases, Whether Ezekiel 37, Numbers 17, etc., we see what the symbolism is of the rod, stick, or roll, and what is to be written on them.

As far as the word “for”, I do agree that it can be interpreted as Ezekiel having to write for those that God says to write for. In my view, even that scenario shows that Ezekiel alone is still doing the writing, so whether he is writing something that is not mentioned, but is doing so for Joseph and Judah, I still have no reason to believe that anyone else is writing on the stick/wood (and in my interpretation, I see no reason to believe that Ezekiel did not actually write on the wood, and that it really symbolizes scepters or whatever. While some may see that as a valid interpretation, I also see it perfectly logical that Ezekiel actually did write). However, in the manner that the English translations of Ezekiel 37:16 are given, I personally see no reason to believe that Ezekiel did not actually write “for Judah…etc” on the sticks for various grammatical reasons (which of course one would have to study in the Hebrew/Greek, which I personally have no training in), where the “for” comes after the comma, therefore there is a division between God saying to write, and Him saying what to write (“take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah…”). This is similar to other English translations, which also put the “For Judah…For Joseph” part in quotations, emphasizing that this is actually what is to be written (found in the NIV, NASB, ESB, ESV). In the Catholic NAB, a colon is given prior to “write on it”. So, I can certainly understand your point as to “for”, however from pretty much all of the English translations given, as far as the grammatical structure, I personally do not interpret it as that.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with it, and I would also like to say that in my view, an appeal to authority (and not just any authority, but Divinely appointed authority, which both Catholics and Mormons believe in), is not necessarily separate from an appeal to God. Yes, we can and always should approach God “directly”, however I also believe that approaching the Divinely appointed authority is also a valid endeavor, and is using one structure that God has given to us to understand and interact with Him in various ways and what He has revealed. I think that both churches would agree with that.

 

[Callirhoe]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether particular scriptures point or do not point to the Book of Mormon, but not much discussion about the greater truth.
Rather than a matter of interpreting scriptures we have in common, it’s a set of books and beliefs that as a whole either are true or are not. There are three possibilities to the true origin of the Book of Mormon: Divine, Human, or Diabolical.

1. Divine: That it is, as the various followers of Joseph Smith (Mormon-Latter Day Saints, Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints-RLDS/Community of Christ, Restoration Branches from the latter, Hedrekites, etc.) claim, a divinely inspired, divinely interpreted scripture.

For the Book of Mormon to be true, the church that has become the Catholic and Orthodox churches must have gone so far into apostacy (false belief and practice) by A.D. 570 that they lost their authority to confer the sacraments, so that the sacraments had to be restored directly through Joseph Smith “a thousand two hundred and threescore” years later, A.D. 1830. This fulfills Revelation 12:6 (KJV) when interpreted as a prophecy of the Church fleeing into the wilderness.

Those who believe in the Book of Mormon claim that it does not conflict with the Bible, but adds another testimony of God’s love to give us the “fullness of the Gospel.” One fruitful area of discussion might be to the nature of God in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Where does the Book of Mormon show more about God’s love than the Catholic Bible and Church teachings? If the Catholics removed the best parts of the Bible so that the Joseph Smith Translation was necessary, how does it show more of God’s love, or more about Christ, than the Catholic Bible? Does it really give us more to point to Christ, or just more to point to Joseph Smith?

1. That the Book of Mormon was written by modern humans, Joseph Smith and his associates.

This is a common claim of Book of Mormon critics. Proponents of the Book of Mormon say there is more true information in the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith could have known. Considering all the works men have written, it is hard to say that a book could not have been written by a person or small group of people.

1. That the Book of Mormon was inspired by Satan.

If the Book of Mormon is not divine and Joseph Smith and the witnesses were not lying, that means Satan was involved in its production. The devil hasn’t been mentioned in this discussion, but (directly or indirectly) he has corrupted either the Catholic and Orthodox Churches or the Mormon-origin churches, so discussion of Satan is relevant to the subject at hand.

According to Joseph Smith Jr., after much prayer he received word from what he thought was the Holy Spirit that no existing church was truly God’s church, because Satan had corrupted those churches too much. He was to establish another by instructions he would receive later. He would be the president and prophet of this new church, bring forth a lost book that would reestablish “the fullness of the Gospel,” and reinsert pieces of the Bible that the Catholics had taken out because they showed Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon would come forth. If instead, the Catholic Church still has the true sacraments, then it is Satan who would want it to be “proven” corrupt by a new work coming forth, to harden people against the true Church.

If Joseph Smith told the truth, it begs this question: when a person prays to God with a sincere heart, can Satan (or one’s own desires) fool that person into thinking a wrong answer is truly from God? If you’re praying to God and get an answer, and you “know in your heart” that answer is true, then it seems that answer must be from God. But if the Book of Mormon is not true, then a lot of people have gotten “answers” after sincere prayer that are not truly answers from God.

A word of caution: In considering Satan’s influence, we as Catholics must have great charity for our brethren who are attempting with the Book of Mormon to follow Christ in His true gospel, and not think the people evil. Whatever the source of the Book of Mormon, Satan could not and did not erase the real gospel message from the hearts of all those who follow Joseph Smith Jr. As a former member of the RLDS restoration movement I can testify that God does work in those ecclesial communities (as He works on the hearts of men everywhere), whether because or in spite of Joseph Smith’s particular teachings.

 

[Garland]

As to who wrote the book of mormon, a snakeoil peddler named joseph smith stuck his head in a hat with a stone in it and created a fairy tale, a rather incorherent one at best, and deluded many people into believing that JESUS had to start all over because he didn`t get it right the first time. To swallow anything mormon, ie kolob, many gods, you to can be a god to your own planet , and other garbage. To believe this tripe shows a serious lapse in mentality. If one seeks the Jesus of history, The true SON OF GOD, he will not be found in the mormon church. The mormon church is more masonic than christian. Most of the masonic ritiuals can be found in the mormon ritiuals, and while most mormons are good natured folks, they are blind to true christianity. J. smith was a slick one for sure. Their doctrines have changed over the years to suit each new president and his teachings, revelations, or to fit the situations of the times. An excellent book by W. WHALEN on mormonism, is still available on amazon.com Garland

 

[ParkerD]

Callirhoe,

I read your post with interest, and the one that followed with a complete lack of surprise. (Perhaps he has given you your answer: do you really think Christ taught to disparage people in that way? Do you really think a follower of Christ who has been supposedly taught will disparage people in that way?)

What this discussion begins to boil down to is freedom of choice, offered by God but often attempted to be withheld or manipulated or threatened by humankind. Those attempts at withholding or manipulation or threatening insults take so very many forms: name-calling, belittling, ridiculing, appeals to authority or tradition or “the devil made him do it” type of reasoning, or countless other ways.

God seems very clear in allowing complete, unfettered choice. He allows that choice to lead wherever humankind chooses their choices to lead. He has guided with love and provided the perfectly wonderful opportunity to change and receive forgiveness and actually begin a “new life” where one no longer disparages or belittles or condemns or says “thou fool”, but the choice is left to each individual, and it is a non-threatening choice. It is a “free will” choice, full of love (and that is not “tough love”–it is “tender love”). Your questions about the Book of Mormon are answered abundantly in that the love Jesus offers all of humankind is taught about in hundreds of ways, showing how tender and loving He really is, how His arms of mercy really are extended, and can encircle all of us with His love if only we will receive (and that doesn’t mean just LDS, of course–it means all).

 

[Kdesiel]

After following Parker and T.A’s disscussion I went home and studied Ezekiel 37 for myself. I found it very fulfilling as studying the word of God is. Just wanted to say thanks to both parties…
I learned new things, I developed new questions which I look forward to discovering the answers too.

 

[Callirhoe]

ParkerD,
People are sinful. Therefore, God’s Church must be held together by something more than people. I now believe God’s true Church was not destroyed by sin, because it is He who does the sacraments, not people. That is what shows God’s true love, His presence in the divine liturgies and his power to bring love into the world through His Church, not the tact or lack thereof of its members. The uncharitability of Catholics toward Mormons does not show the Catholic Church is untrue; it just shows some Catholics are not following the Church as well as we should. Where we fail to show His love, we will be called to account on our day of judgment. Scandal–driving people away from God and His truth by our own sin–is a grievous fault.

In the Book of Mormon I see a story of repeated failure. God establishes good, but the people mess it up, over and over. It is much like the Old Testament Israel, when God had to keep pulling them back. In the Book of Mormon even when Chirst came and showed himself and EVERYBODY believed, they had gone astray again within a few hundred years (which offers a parallel to believe the same thing happened to the Catholic Church). But when Christ came as reported in the Bible, He established a Church that He promised would not be destroyed, EVER. Now the Mormons don’t say outright that the Church was destroyed, it was “gone into the wilderness.” But If the sacraments were still there, Joseph Smith would have been told to go find them, wherever in the world they hid, so he could receive them from the proper authority, rather than having to have them directly reestablished by Christ. But without the sacraments, how is it a real Church? As the Mormons agree, the true Church is not just a book, but the authority granted by Christ and handed down through the sacraments.

God is all-powerful and all-loving. He knows the course of history and future. He really can keep His Church on earth despite the sinfulness of the beings He lovingly created. He did not create us so evil that we destroy every good thing He does.

To believe in the Book of Mormon, one must believe that either Joseph Smith was the first person in over 1000 years to have enough faith to ask God for the truth and have his prayer answered, or God was willing to leave the world without the sacramental benefit of His church for 1260 years, until His time was right to reestablish it.

If the Catholic Church can be shown to be the same essential Church in, say, A.D. 700, as it was in A.D. 60, then the Book of Mormon is proven false. Therefore, the followers of Joseph Smith claim that the early records of the Church and even the Bible itself were corrupted by the influence of the Catholic Church.

Book of Mormon type faith requires almost a belief that a practice is wrong because the Catholic Church does it. Take infant baptism. If you really read about the early Church (this Catholic Answers web site is a good place to start), you will find that within the first 200 years it was common practice. Therefore, you must believe the Catholic Church went that much astray by however early you find evidence of a practice Joseph Smith thought was wrong. Pretty soon you have the Catholic Church leaving Christ even quicker than did the Nephites, when the founders of the Church in the Jerusalem area had the benefit of being with Christ while he was alive, nearly losing hope when He died, and witnessing the miracle of His rising again, where the Nephites just had prophecy and one grand appearance from Christ. Is that really the interpretation of history that best shows God’s love? Could an omnipotent God truly not raise up enough saints to keep the sacraments in His Church without impinging on our agency? Or would a loving God truly choose not to do so?

Real faith does not require closing your intellect to everything that doesn’t agree with the feeling in your heart. God is love, and God is truth. The Book of Mormon points to itself and says it is true, and recommends a method of discerning truth by which many have come to the conclusion that it is true. But if the Book of Mormon is the work in question, how can it tell how to discern the truth of itself? If I say I am a saint because you can look at my sweet smile and know in your heart I am innocent, does that make me any more likely to be a saint? Of course not, because you know of outside sources that a sweet smile can be deceiving. The Book of Mormon says the burning in your heart means it is true, but what outside verification is there that the burning in your heart means truth? How is it any more reliable than the sweetness of my smile?

My post is too long and I am too long away from the room with my children, so I must close. May God bless you and bring you home to His truth.

 

[Garland]

Parker, I see you think I was disparing someone. Nothing could be farthur from the truth. Every word is true as to the belief systems of mormons. j. smith was every thing I said he was. A snakeoil peddler who was in trouble with the law all the time for his skeems to separate people from their money.When you stick you head in a hat with a stone in it you see only darkness if you dont cheat and let in some light. The things about kolob and many gods and good mormons becoming jesus to another planet and underware that is covered in symbols and everything else you dont tell investigators until they take the plunge is all true. If you and I were walking in the forrest and I saw you about to step on a rattlesnake I most certanily would try to warn you of the danger. The same for you immortal soul. the mormon church is a lie from its very beginning, founded by a lier of great perportions. you have been decieved and no amount of scripture twisting can make any part of it truth. There is one truth and one truth only in its fullness. That truth is JESUS and HIS ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH. He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. To say you have truth I would have to believe HE LIED. That is not possible, so j. smith comes out as the lier in this case. From one who has been there and done that. Garland

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
People are sinful. Therefore, God’s Church must be held together by something more than people. I now believe God’s true Church was not destroyed by sin, because it is He who does the sacraments, not people. That is what shows God’s true love, His presence in the divine liturgies and his power to bring love into the world through His Church, not the tact or lack thereof of its members. The uncharitability of Catholics toward Mormons does not show the Catholic Church is untrue; it just shows some Catholics are not following the Church as well as we should. Where we fail to show His love, we will be called to account on our day of judgment. Scandal–driving people away from God and His truth by our own sin–is a grievous fault.

In the Book of Mormon I see a story of repeated failure. God establishes good, but the people mess it up, over and over. It is much like the Old Testament Israel, when God had to keep pulling them back. In the Book of Mormon even when Chirst came and showed himself and EVERYBODY believed, they had gone astray again within a few hundred years (which offers a parallel to believe the same thing happened to the Catholic Church). But when Christ came as reported in the Bible, He established a Church that He promised would not be destroyed, EVER. Now the Mormons don’t say outright that the Church was destroyed, it was “gone into the wilderness.” But If the sacraments were still there, Joseph Smith would have been told to go find them, wherever in the world they hid, so he could receive them from the proper authority, rather than having to have them directly reestablished by Christ. But without the sacraments, how is it a real Church? As the Mormons agree, the true Church is not just a book, but the authority granted by Christ and handed down through the sacraments.

God is all-powerful and all-loving. He knows the course of history and future. He really can keep His Church on earth despite the sinfulness of the beings He lovingly created. He did not create us so evil that we destroy every good thing He does.

To believe in the Book of Mormon, one must believe that either Joseph Smith was the first person in over 1000 years to have enough faith to ask God for the truth and have his prayer answered, or God was willing to leave the world without the sacramental benefit of His church for 1260 years, until His time was right to reestablish it.

If the Catholic Church can be shown to be the same essential Church in, say, A.D. 700, as it was in A.D. 60, then the Book of Mormon is proven false. Therefore, the followers of Joseph Smith claim that the early records of the Church and even the Bible itself were corrupted by the influence of the Catholic Church.

Book of Mormon type faith requires almost a belief that a practice is wrong because the Catholic Church does it. Take infant baptism. If you really read about the early Church (this Catholic Answers web site is a good place to start), you will find that within the first 200 years it was common practice. Therefore, you must believe the Catholic Church went that much astray by however early you find evidence of a practice Joseph Smith thought was wrong. Pretty soon you have the Catholic Church leaving Christ even quicker than did the Nephites, when the founders of the Church in the Jerusalem area had the benefit of being with Christ while he was alive, nearly losing hope when He died, and witnessing the miracle of His rising again, where the Nephites just had prophecy and one grand appearance from Christ. Is that really the interpretation of history that best shows God’s love? Could an omnipotent God truly not raise up enough saints to keep the sacraments in His Church without impinging on our agency? Or would a loving God truly choose not to do so?

Real faith does not require closing your intellect to everything that doesn’t agree with the feeling in your heart. God is love, and God is truth. The Book of Mormon points to itself and says it is true, and recommends a method of discerning truth by which many have come to the conclusion that it is true. But if the Book of Mormon is the work in question, how can it tell how to discern the truth of itself? … The Book of Mormon says the burning in your heart means it is true, but what outside verification is there that the burning in your heart means truth? How is it any more reliable than the sweetness of my smile?

My post is too long and I am too long away from the room with my children, so I must close. May God bless you and bring you home to His truth.

Callirhoe,
I posted on a thread to allow you to read (if you wish) a whole discussion about the church “gone into the wilderness.” It addresses some of the issues you brought up in the above post and in your earlier one.

I don’t have time to answer all your questions and concerns, as that would really literally take a hundred pages or more. But since we both believe “spiritual death” is something we don’t want to have happen, and “spiritual life” or “rebirth” is something we do want to have happen and want to preserve in our lives, then I just don’t see why one could say they “trust” God who says for us to have faith and to ask Him for help including answers to specific questions and concerns, yet turn around and say “don’t trust your own heart or what you may think God speaks to your heart and mind through His Holy Spirit” (even though that is exactly how He spoke to so many prophets).

I think that is an off-base assumption, that God does not trust His children to be able to differentiate true inspiration from false “inspiration”, if they have sincere intent and sincere faith. (The hard part comes if people are taught using methods of fear or power threats or insinuating and condemning language, leading to distrust and uncertainty to one who lacks understanding.)

I think God does want us to learn to trust Him, completely, with all of our heart and all of our mind and all of our soul. I think He wants to establish and maintain two-way communication with us, so that we are truly spiritually “reborn” and “alive” and have a relationship that leads to growth through the inspiration He wants to provide to us. I think the adversary wants us to believe we should not trust inspiration, because then that adversary can stand in the way of change and growth and sincere forgiveness of self and forgiveness of others. When that happens, the adversary is “prevailing”. But I assure you that the adversary does not and will not prevail with millions and billions of those who seek Christ with the ever-present knowledge and faith that He does change hearts and change souls and change lives. (Again, that is not exclusive to LDS.)

 

[thecourt]

The Book of Mormon was written from plates buried years ago – it contains a history of God’s dealings with the inhabitants of the Americas. The books in it came from prophets similar to Moses, Matthew, and Paul.

It was not written by Joseph Smith as some falsely state.

It came from the God inspiring prophets such as Nephi, Alma, and Moroni, in particularly who buried the plates that would be translated into the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God.

 

[Garland]

thecourt, poppycock. Garland

 

[Kdesiel]

The Book of Mormon was written from plates buried years ago – it contains a history of God’s dealings with the inhabitants of the Americas. The books in it came from prophets similar to Moses, Matthew, and Paul.

It was not written by Joseph Smith as some falsely state.

It came from the God inspiring prophets such as Nephi, Alma, and Moroni, in particularly who buried the plates that would be translated into the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God.

Well your word on the matter or matter for that fact means absolutely nothing.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The Book of Mormon was written from plates buried years ago – it contains a history of God’s dealings with the inhabitants of the Americas. The books in it came from prophets similar to Moses, Matthew, and Paul.

It was not written by Joseph Smith as some falsely state.

It came from the God inspiring prophets such as Nephi, Alma, and Moroni, in particularly who buried the plates that would be translated into the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God.

You are speaking here as a Mormon, not as the “former Mormon” you said you were or the Catholic you said you’ve always been, right?