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

[why_me]

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.

I can agree with you. I think that discussion and dialogue are very important for understanding. However, usually on religious boards people come to the discussion with a certain bias. In this case, the biasness of a catholicism or mormonism. And in both cases both attempt to prove themselves correct in their interpretation. And in the end, it is always a draw unless one person is more learned and convincing than the other.

And so, in a discussion, one must come to the table without bias but with objectivity. And this is nearly impossible on a religious board because most people have a certain bias. I good critical dialague is achieved through looking at theories objectively and not with a preconceived bias.

 

[why_me]

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.

I said that this is where authority and authoritive interpretation can lead. And it has done so on many occasions. We need to remember that the early colonialists came to America for religious freedom because certain authoritive people did not allow the those colonialists to practice their faith in their former countries. And need I remind you of the Inquisition and where that authoritive understanding led to?

And this is why whether in religious discussion, government, schools, and parenting, authority needs to be understood for what it can become. For after all, nothing worst than a very authoritive parent. Much damage is done to the child’s psyche in such a home and abuse can occur.

 

[why_me]

Clearly your Taliban and Inquisition examples are irrelevant.

Not to the people who fell and fall victim to them. Not to mention in other religious socieities where those in religious authority seem to control with an iron fist because they represent religious authority and are the people who give religious interpretation to sacred texts.

In religion, those with authoritive interpretation can be very abusive to those who do not agree with their authority. And may I remind you of what occurred at the time of christ and how christ treated such authoritive personalities?

By the way you remind me of Religio who seems to have disappeared just when you came to the board. Do you know Religio? He or she was also fascinated by authoritive understandings and loved to study religious doctrine.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Not to the people who fell and fall victim to them. Not to mention in other religious socieities where those in religious authority seem to control with an iron fist because they represent religious authority and are the people who give religious interpretation to sacred texts.

In religion, those with authoritive interpretation can be very abusive to those who do not agree with their authority. And may I remind you of what occurred at the time of christ and how christ treated such authoritive personalities?

By the way you remind me of Religio who seems to have disappeared just when you came to the board. Do you know Religio? He or she was also fascinated by authoritive understandings and loved to study religious doctrine.

Irrelevant to the discussion is what I am obviously talking about. The Taliban and the Inquisition are extreme examples that are not representative of the concept of authority. In religion, as I have already stated, authority is clearly important, otherwise you will have a “make it up as you go along” trend, which we can see in various New Age movements (Wicca being a great example of this).

No, I am not Religio, though you did accuse me on MADB of being him/her (I am ChristKnight over there). If you read elsewhere on this forum, you will see that the whole point is to study and discuss religious doctrine (especially when…this is “Non-Catholic religions”, and what separates us is…religious doctrine). Hence why I don’t understand why you keep derailing threads if you think debating religious doctrine is “pointless” and “leads nowhere”.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I said that this is where authority and authoritive interpretation can lead. And it has done so on many occasions. We need to remember that the early colonialists came to America for religious freedom because certain authoritive people did not allow the those colonialists to practice their faith in their former countries. And need I remind you of the Inquisition and where that authoritive understanding led to?

And this is why whether in religious discussion, government, schools, and parenting, authority needs to be understood for what it can become. For after all, nothing worst than a very authoritive parent. Much damage is done to the child’s psyche in such a home and abuse can occur.

You need to stop conflating authoritative and authoritarian. Authority is important in all aspects of life, including religion, as I have already stated. Abuses occur in all things, and again, there is no reason to judge a concept, such as authority, based on its extremes. Also, there is nothing wrong with authoritative parents, however there is something wrong with authoritarian parents, which can and does cause many future problems, especially in adolescence (my degree is in psychology, which is also why I find your posting style very…telling on various levels).

 

[why_me]

No, I am not Religio, though you did accuse me on MADB of being him/her (I am ChristKnight over there). If you read elsewhere on this forum, you will see that the whole point is to study and discuss religious doctrine (especially when…this is “Non-Catholic religions”, and what separates us is…religious doctrine). Hence why I don’t understand why you keep derailing threads if you think debating religious doctrine is “pointless” and “leads nowhere”.

I knew that you weren’t him or her because the tone of your post is different. But I thought that you were filling in for him or her. I don’t think that it is pointless to discuss at all. It is done on the MAD board all the time. But attempting to prove someone’s faith false based on authoritive interpretation does lead to no where, especially in the case with mormonism. It can not be done. It has been tried from the very beginning of the lds church but to no avail. But a good discussion over what one believes is good, especially if done objectively.

Most catholic posters here on the mormon threads state explicitly that mormonism is false and as such, Joseph Smith was a false prophet. And as such, this biasness taints their posts. You are different but you do come with the same biasness.

There is nothing more interesting than a group of scholars getting together with their bias ideas left outside to discuss theories and ideas objectively in matters of faith.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I knew that you weren’t him or her because the tone of your post is different. But I thought that you were filling in for him or her. I don’t think that it is pointless to discuss at all. It is done on the MAD board all the time. But attempting to prove someone’s faith false based on authoritive interpretation does lead to no where, especially in the case with mormonism. It can not be done. It has been tried from the very beginning of the lds church but to no avail. But a good discussion over what one believes is good, especially if done objectively.

Most catholic posters here on the mormon threads state explicitly that mormonism is false and as such, Joseph Smith was a false prophet. And as such, this biasness taints their posts. You are different but you do come with the same biasness.

There is nothing more interesting than a group of scholars getting together with their bias ideas left outside to discuss theories and ideas objectively in matters of faith.

Here is a bit of “discussion” from MADB, note it’s objectivity

Catholicism bears no resemblance to the ancient church, it’s authority is based on scripture and tradition, it lacks the spiritual gifts and is steeped in corruption. It’s a painted sepulcher that is bright and fresh on the outside, but inwardly is corrupt; and its leaders are blind guides leading the blind.

No wonder you fell away to follow after medieval idolatry; you never understood anything at all about the Saviour’s Church.
Keep up the slightly modified Isis-worship.

Looks like they’re in need of your sanctimonious lecturing. I’d like to see you lecture CS but that won’t happen, you know how you’ll be treated if you call him/her on the comment. I think you need some objectivity when it comes to the posters over there. For some typical biased posting you could check out how John W is treated by many there.

 

[zerinus]

In Ezekiel 37:15-17, we see that God tells Ezekiel to write on the two sticks, so I’d be interested to hear how it is deduced that the sticks are the Bible and the Book of Mormon, since Ezekiel is told to do the writing. God tells Ezekiel exactly what to write on the two sticks (For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; “For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions”), so again I’d be curious as to how this is interpreted as being the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

Also, how is “Judah” associated with the entire Bible?

Interestingly, God explains after he talks about the two sticks what He actually meant. God prepares Ezekiel to answer the children of the people who would ask what is meant by the two sticks and joining them in his hand, by saying that He will take the children of Israel and bring them into their own land, and He will make them one nation, and they won’t be two nations any longer, or divided into two kingdoms. (verses 21-22).

So again, I don’t see how this is the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

The peculiar LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37 originates from this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 27:

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

By which of course is meant the Book of Mormon. Here the Lord is in effect telling us how to interpret that scripture in Ezekiel. The relevant passage in the Ezekiel of the KJV is as follows, and requires careful reading (emphasis added):

Ezekiel 37:

15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, 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:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

This prophecy is not just about the reunifications of the two kingdoms. It is about that; but it is also about something else. It is also a prophecy about the unification of the two sticks themselves (whatever they meant). It does not just say that the Lord is going to unite the two kingdoms. It says that He will unite the actual sticks themselves. The unification of the two sticks is a prelude to the unification of the two kingdoms. You can’t escape that. That is the obvious meaning of the verse 19. So the relevant question here is what is the meaning of the sticks? That does have a bearing on interpreting the scripture. The Ensign article that why me had linked to is a good one. If you read it carefully enough, you will have noticed that it gives a translation of that passage according to the New English Bible. That is not a Mormon Bible. It was a kind of semi-official translation published in the UK in 1970. It renders Ezekiel 37:15–19 as follows (emphasis added):

These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, ‘Judah and his associates of Israel.’ Then take another leaf and write on it, ‘Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all of his associates of Israel.’ Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand. These are the words of the Lord God: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining it to the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet.

So it does make a lot of difference how you translate the word that is translated “stick”. If it actually means “writing tablets;” and if Ezekiel is prophesying that at some future date the Lord is going to unite the writing tablets (i.e. records) of Judah an Ephraim, then its interpretation as referring to the Book of Mormon becomes a lot easier to understand.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
…
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…

Callirhoe,
I provided a partial response to your post in my post yesterday. I think it is fairly clear in Revelation 13:7 that the adversary has been allowed to have “power…over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” I don’t think it is a difficult thing to understand why God would allow that situation:

If one draws a continuum line with “forced behavior” on one end and “free will action” on the other end, then one would basically have a simple presentation of how the adversary desires to “rule”, versus how the Savior and God the Father provide “rulership”. The Savior and the Father certainly have the ultimate “authority” in the universe. How do They choose to bring about Their will? Do They do it by force, or by allowing the actions of humankind? I think They allow actions, allow choices, allow sinful attitudes and horrible treatment of one person by another person.

In keeping with that same allowance for choices and actions, does one not see that by allowing for the adversary to have had power even after Christ ascended, and by therefore allowing all kinds of belief systems including the authority that each of those belief systems claims is legitimate, God has allowed for humankind to have exactly the complete realm of choices that would be obviously needed in the world in order for people to really be allowed to choose for themselves? Your claim of authority is logical and makes sense to you and gives you exactly what you want–and God “wants” you to have exactly what you want, because that is inherent in His loving nature: allow free will action.

Whether or not the authority you claim is legitimate is or is not legitimate, it gives many people precisely what they desire, especially when it comes to otherwise having to “trust” in whether the Holy Spirit is “with them” or not. By saying to oneself, “my priest (or my traditions) can decide that question”, then the individual person is “off the hook”.

Where this realm of choices leads is to a myriad of potential outcomes, and each person is choosing the outcome they desire for themselves. (But note that they may perhaps also try and influence sometimes by threats or condemnatory language, the outcome they desire for someone else, or assert that the authority they have chosen to follow is the authority that someone else must therefore follow.) It also leads to an outcome that each person is basically choosing an answer to the question, “how much truth do you want to live by?” just as they are faced with the questions, "how much love do you want to live by? and “how much faith do you want to live by?” God has allowed this outcome in the world–an outcome of individual decision-making, individual action, and each person taking full responsibility for their own choices and the results of those choices.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The peculiar LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37 originates from this verse in the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 27:

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

By which of course is meant the Book of Mormon. Here the Lord is in effect telling us how to interpret that scripture in Ezekiel. The relevant passage in the Ezekiel of the KJV is as follows, and requires careful reading (emphasis added):

Ezekiel 37:

15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, 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:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.
21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

This prophecy is not just about the reunifications of the two kingdoms. It is about that; but it is also about something else. It is also a prophecy about the unification of the two sticks themselves (whatever they meant). It does not just say that the Lord is going to unite the two kingdoms. It says that He will unite the actual sticks themselves. The unification of the two sticks is a prelude to the unification of the two kingdoms. You can’t escape that. That is the obvious meaning of the verse 19. So the relevant question here is what is the meaning of the sticks? That does have a bearing on interpreting the scripture. The Ensign article that why me had linked to is a good one. If you read it carefully enough, you will have noticed that it gives a translation of that passage according to the New English Bible. That is not a Mormon Bible. It was a kind of semi-official translation published in the UK in 1970. It renders Ezekiel 37:15–19 as follows (emphasis added):

These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, ‘Judah and his associates of Israel.’ Then take another leaf and write on it, ‘Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all of his associates of Israel.’ Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand. These are the words of the Lord God: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining it to the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet.

So it does make a lot of difference how you translate the word that is translated “stick”. If it actually means “writing tablets;” and if Ezekiel is prophesying that at some future date the Lord is going to unite the writing tablets (i.e. records) of Judah an Ephraim, then its interpretation as referring to the Book of Mormon becomes a lot easier to understand.

Thank you Zerinus. Yes, we actually discussed most of this already There is no problem with “stick” being translated as “wooden tablet” (the Hebrew aytz which is used here for ‘stick’ means wood), or something made of wood that Ezekiel would write on, and I do not see that as affecting my interpretation of the passage. Interestingly, the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, ASV, CEV, and NAB all translate “aytz” as stick, so I see no reason to focus on the translation of the NEB (especially when the ‘official’ LDS English translation is the KJV), though it is good to note, and really does not affect my interpretation, since I believe that Ezekiel actually wrote what is stated in the passage, on a wood something.

I fully believe that Ezekiel actually wrote on the wood. Also, I understand your interpretation that when God says he will take one stick and join it to the other, that He will actually take the physical sticks and join them together. However, another interpretation is that God is explicitly showing what the unification of the two sticks/tablets means, namely, the unification of a nation. Remember, he states that the stick of Joseph is in the hand of Ephraim. So, if we’re saying that verse 19 means that the physical sticks will be in God’s hands, then that also means that the stick of Joseph is actually in the hands of Ephraim. Remember, prior to verse 19, Ezekiel unites the sticks in his hands in verse 17, so that would mean that Ezekiel does it, then God does the same thing. With a literal interpretation, the unification of the two sticks occurs twice in Ezekiel 37.

Also, a literalist interpretation of the passage means that the two sticks that are united in God’s hands were written on by Ezekiel, and not anyone else (there is no reason to believe that anyone else did or is writing on the sticks before or after Ezekiel, especially with a literal interpretation of this passage). And, we have to take into account the discussion of the bones prior to the sticks, in verses 1-14, which is also metaphorical. Clearly, a metaphorical interpretation of verse 19 makes more sense, at least in my view. So, I see this prophecy as saying that God will unite the nation, and is using a metaphor (which Ezekiel demonstrates) to show that, explaining it in verses 21-22. I do understand that your interpretation is based on your modern revelation in D&C.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I knew that you weren’t him or her because the tone of your post is different. But I thought that you were filling in for him or her. I don’t think that it is pointless to discuss at all. It is done on the MAD board all the time. But attempting to prove someone’s faith false based on authoritive interpretation does lead to no where, especially in the case with mormonism. It can not be done. It has been tried from the very beginning of the lds church but to no avail. But a good discussion over what one believes is good, especially if done objectively.

Most catholic posters here on the mormon threads state explicitly that mormonism is false and as such, Joseph Smith was a false prophet. And as such, this biasness taints their posts. You are different but you do come with the same biasness.

There is nothing more interesting than a group of scholars getting together with their bias ideas left outside to discuss theories and ideas objectively in matters of faith.

There really is no “especially in the case with mormonism”. If we’re being objective, Mormonism is no different than any of the multitude of religions that exist in the world. Apologists of various religions attempt to disprove other religions, and they believe that they have, even if the practitioners of said religion do not believe so. That is obvious. Scientology claims 8 million followers (founded in 1954), is building lots of new fancy buildings around the world, and its followers claim that it has helped them so much, even if ex-members and others show, in their view, that it is false. So, Mormonism is no more immune to being proven false than any other religion, especially when you see how others view religions such as Islam, Scientology, and of course Catholicism.

Everyone has bias in their postings on religion. It is not just the Catholics whose posts are “tainted” by their bias, it is also the Mormons. Again, you need to stop thinking that Mormons and Mormonism are somehow immune to the rules and judgments that you apply to Catholics, which is of course one of your own biases (as I have said, your posts and posting style show your own bias). Catholics post that Mormonism is false and that Smith was a false prophet because they believe it, otherwise they would be…Mormon. I don’t run around saying that, however yes, I do believe that obviously. Likewise, the Mormon posters believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that their church is the true church of Jesus Christ. And that of course brings their biases to these discussions. So again, we are all subject to the same rules and effects of bias here, this is not a scientific study.

 

[zerinus]

Also, I understand your interpretation that when God says he will take one stick and join it to the other, that He will actually take the physical sticks and join them together. …

No, that is not my interpretation. The “sticks” (writing tablets) signify the sacred records of the two communities. The significant bit here is that the prophecy states that the two sticks themselves will be joined together in the Lord’s hands, which means that they do not just signify the union of the two kingdoms, but also something more specific that the sticks themselves represented—i.e. the sacred records of the two communities.

Also, a literalist interpretation of the passage means that the two sticks that are united in God’s hands were written on by Ezekiel, and not anyone else …

Not at all. See above.

… Clearly, a metaphorical interpretation of verse 19 makes more sense, at least in my view. So, I see this prophecy as saying that God will unite the nation, and is using a metaphor (which Ezekiel demonstrates) to show that, explaining it in verses 21-22. …

Not true. The metaphor applies to the “two sticks” (writing tablets) representing the sacred writings of the two communities, not their kingdoms. See above.

The idea that the Book of Mormon is a prelude to (and facilitator of) the gathering and restoration of the house of Israel in the last days is a common and well established theme in modern LDS scripture, especially the Book of Mormon itself. Here are some quotes.

2 Nephi 3:

12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

3 Nephi 21:

1 And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place—that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion;

2 And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign—for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you, and which I shall declare unto you hereafter of myself, and by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall be given unto you of the Father, shall be made known unto the Gentiles * that they may know concerning this people who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, and concerning this my people who shall be scattered by them;

3 Verily, verily, I say unto you, when these things shall be made known unto them of the Father, and shall come forth of the Father, from them unto you;

---

7 And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things—it shall be a sign unto them, that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel .*

You have to read the whole of chapter 20 and 21 to get the full idea. Here is another:

Moses 7:

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth , to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

No, that is not my interpretation. The “sticks” (writing tablets) signify the sacred records of the two communities. The significant bit here is that the prophecy states that the two sticks themselves will be joined together in the Lord’s hands, which means that they do not just signify the union of the two kingdoms, but also something more specific that the sticks themselves represented—i.e. the sacred records of the two communities.

Not at all. See above.

Not true. The metaphor applies to the “two sticks” (writing tablets) representing the sacred writings of the two communities, not their kingdoms. See above.

The idea that the Book of Mormon is a prelude to (and facilitator of) the gathering and restoration of the house of Israel in the last days is a common and well established theme in modern LDS scripture, especially the Book of Mormon itself. Here are some quotes.

Firstly, again, I recognize that the LDS view of Ezekiel 37 is formed in relation to statements from the Book of Mormon as well as what you believe is a revelation. Such quotes are not relevant for me in my assessment of Ezekiel 37, in the context of the Bible, therefore, thank you for the quotes from the Book of Mormon, which add to the LDS view of Ezekiel 37, however they are not relevant to my understanding of Ezekiel 37 in my theology. Indeed, as one FAIR apologist states (I believe I posted this earlier):

“*Although Ezekiel was speaking directly of reunification, Latter-day Saints have applied their own modern application of this passage as it relates to the Book of Mormon’s role in the restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel. *”
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_as_the_stick_of_Ephraim

There simply is no reason, using the Bible (which is my point, since I know you use other sources to come to your conclusion), to believe that the sticks referred to scriptures of the two communities. There is no reason to believe that anyone other than Ezekiel actually wrote on the wood sticks/tablets/leafs/etc. From Ezekiel 37:1-14, we see bones that symbolize the house of Israel, that come together as one. The dialogue on the two sticks parallels the dialogue on bones, which is why in my view, the sticks do not represent scriptures, anymore than the bones are not representative of what the passage clearly states they are. The stick of Joseph is in the hand of Ephraim, which makes perfect sense, since Ephraim was over Manasseh.

Verse 21 is very important here, because 1) God says to Ezekiel to write on the wood, then to unite them in his hand 2) God tells Ezekiel that when the people ask what this means, to tell them that He will unite the two sticks in His own hand (noting that this statement does not necessitate that God will have something in an actual ‘hand’, anymore than 1 Peter 5:6 (‘Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time’) means that, for example), and as Ezekiel is saying this, the people will see the sticks as one in Ezekiel’s hand; 3)Immediately after this occurs, God says to say to them that He will take the children of Israel into their own land, and make them one nation.

So, while I understand that the Mormon understanding of Ezekiel 37 is coupled with passages from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, in my view, there is no reason to believe that the sticks meant scriptures, when using the Bible alone.

 

[zerinus]

Indeed, as one FAIR apologist states (I believe I posted this earlier):

“*Although Ezekiel was speaking directly of reunification, Latter-day Saints have applied their own modern application of this passage as it relates to the Book of Mormon’s role in the restoration of the gospel and the gathering of Israel. *”
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_as_the_stick_of_Ephraim

Just because it comes from FAIR it doesn’t mean that it accurately interprets LDS doctrine. That article contains a number of mistakes. I don’t depend on such articles for my doctrine. I derive them directly from the standard works of the Church.

There simply is no reason, using the Bible (which is my point, since I know you use other sources to come to your conclusion), to believe that the sticks referred to scriptures of the two communities.

Well, I think the meaning is clear. I am not going to belabor the point. I think that I have made it clear enough in my first post. I simply disagree with your interpretation.

There is no reason to believe that anyone other than Ezekiel actually wrote on the wood sticks/tablets/leafs/etc.

I didn’t say they did. But the sticks meant something more than just sticks, otherwise why should God say that at some future date He is going to unite the two sticks? Does God care about sticks?

From Ezekiel 37:1-14, we see bones that symbolize the house of Israel, that come together as one.

The bones don’t “symbolize” anything. The bones are the (dead) house of Israel. It says, “I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel” (Ezekiel 37:12). That is not symbolic. It tells it as it is going to be. And that passage is not about “Israel coming together”. It is about their resurrection and restoration to their lands of inheritance.

The dialogue on the two sticks parallels the dialogue on bones, which is why in my view, the sticks do not represent scriptures, anymore than the bones are not representative of what the passage clearly states they are.

I don’t agree. The two are not comparable.

Verse 21 is very important here, because 1) God says to Ezekiel to write on the wood, then to unite them in his hand 2) God tells Ezekiel that when the people ask what this means, to tell them that He will unite the two sticks in His own hand (noting that this statement does not necessitate that God will have something in an actual ‘hand’, …

And you keep ignoring verse 19 that says that the two sticks themselves will be brought together by the Lord; and since God doesn’t care about sticks, the obvious meaning is that the two scriptures will be brought together by the Lord, which is what the sticks represent.

So, while I understand that the Mormon understanding of Ezekiel 37 is coupled with passages from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, in my view, there is no reason to believe that the sticks meant scriptures, when using the Bible alone.

Al my efforts in the previous posts have been to show how that interpretation of Ezekiel 37 is not dependent on LDS scripture but can be derived from a careful reading of Ezekiel itself—as the New English Bible comes very close to doing.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Just because it comes from FAIR it doesn’t mean that it accurately interprets LDS doctrine. That article contains a number of mistakes. I don’t depend on such articles for my doctrine. I derive them directly from the standard works of the Church.

Nor did I say that it “accurately interprets LDS doctrine” or that you “depend on such articles for [your] doctrine”. What I did say was that it was the view of “one FAIR apologist”.

Well, I think the meaning is clear. I am not going to belabor the point. I think that I have made it clear enough in my first post. I simply disagree with your interpretation.

Obviously. I also disagree with your interpretation, which I have been discussing with ParkerD for some time now.

I didn’t say they did. But the sticks meant something more than just sticks, otherwise why should God say that at some future date He is going to unite the two sticks? Does God care about sticks?

Clearly, I have stated many times that the sticks mean more than just sticks. I disagree that the sticks signify scriptures, and see no Biblical reason to believe that they do.

The bones don’t “symbolize” anything. The bones are the (dead) house of Israel. It says, “I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel” (Ezekiel 37:12). That is not symbolic. It tells it as it is going to be. And that passage is not about “Israel coming together”. It is about their resurrection and restoration to their lands of inheritance.

I don’t agree. The two are not comparable.

And I disagree. In both cases, God states that He will bring the people together, into the land of Israel.

And you keep ignoring verse 19 that says that the two sticks themselves will be brought together by the Lord; and since God doesn’t care about sticks, the obvious meaning is that the two scriptures will be brought together by the Lord, which is what the sticks represent.

I have not ignored verse 19, you have ignored my view of it (and it is definitely not obvious that the meaning is related to two scriptures). In fact, I gave a verse, 1 Peter 5:6, which also references the hand of God, in a manner that I believe is similar to what is being discussed here, and other places that mention the hand of God. God does not care about sticks, however He does care about what the sticks represent. You believe that the sticks signify scriptures. I believe that they signify kingdoms, coming together in Him. After Ezekiel tells the people that God will unite the sticks/leaves, he then says that God will gather the Israelites together. In my view, this make perfect sense when the sticks signify the two kingdoms, and is a logical progression in saying that the sticks will be united in God’s hand. They are all part of the same explanation of what is meant by what Ezekiel is doing (since Ezekiel is still talking to them).

Al my efforts in the previous posts have been to show how that interpretation of Ezekiel 37 is not dependent on LDS scripture but can be derived from a careful reading of Ezekiel itself—as the New English Bible comes very close to doing.

And I do not see how the NEB translation dismisses my assertion. It is fine that we do not agree with each others interpretations.

 

[PaulDupre]

Here are some footnotes from the NET Ez 37. It is obvious that the NET translators saw the passage as we do, as depicting te reuniting of Israel, and not as the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:

17tn Heb “I will place them on it, that is, on the stick of Judah.”

18sn The reunification of Israel and Judah is envisioned as well in Ezek 33:23, 29; Jer 3:18; 23:5-6; Hos 1:11; Amos 9:11.

19sn Jeremiah also attested to the reuniting of the northern and southern kingdoms (Jer 3:12, 14; 31:2-6).

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi, Paul,
That was a funny one about “Apostle Judge Adams”. I’ve never heard of him.

Not surprizing. You seem to know very little of Mormon history.

Judge Adams was a “worshipful master” of freemasonry, helped introduce Joseph Smith to freemasonry, and was one of the first 10 men chosen by Joseph to receive the endowment, and was a friend and confidant of Joseph Smith until his death.

Oliver B. Huntington was a close friend and secretary to Joseph Smith, appointed teacher of Joseph’s son, and his journal was quoted by Brigham Young in sermons.

Rudger Clawson was President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles from 1921 until his death in 1943. Hardly a man who wouldn’t know what he was hearing or who did not understand LDS doctrine. He was also the first polygamist to serve jail time for bigamy following passage of the Edmunds Act outlawing plural marraige,

Sometimes I think some people were misunderstanding what they thought they heard when they thought they heard something and wrote it in their journal.

Why would you think that? Perhaps you don’t know that, until very recently, your leaders taught that Jesus was polygamously married and had children. This being the case, why would those leaders not also assume that Jesus’ descendants would be drawn to his true church and become its leaders?

 

[Garland]

lds folks, why did the angel translate the plates into old english, instead of the more modern english tongue of the time. It would certainly have made it more easily understand. The hyroglyfics examined by smithsonion scholars,that smith drew examples of were gibberish according to them. The new testament writers didnt write in old english,like that found in the kjv, however given the background of smiths early life and attachment to the masonic lodge, I doubt if he knew that Jesus spoke aramaic, or hebrew. That angel behind the sheets must have thought he was in 16th century england. It is also strange that when smith wanted to include masonic ritual in his rituals he had only to say that the masons had corrupted something from the time of Solomon, and he had"restored" it to its original state. That might work, but the masons cannot be traced back farther than the 17 to 1800s. Proving that a ritual existed before even the original folks existed that lay claim to it has got to be a compelling problem. I think if you value your immortal soul, you had better get yourselves out of the most outlandish cult any thinking man has ever looked into and come home to the Catholic Church. He who adds to the sayings of this book add to their torment, and he who takes away, takes away from his joy. I think the book of mormon and d&c, pearl of great price, and all other additions to the original book certainly fits this warning. If you and smith are right then Jesus lied. Thats not possible. blessings. Garland

 

[Callirhoe]

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.)

God wants us to trust Him completely to keep His promises. But the only place He appears to promise direct, private revelation to all who pray sincerely is in the Book of Mormon (If you have other quotes for that I’d be glad to see them). To use that burning in the bosom as a sure sign of truth, one must first accept the divinity of the Book of Mormon. It’s a logical flaw to use a “promise” in the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon. I could “trust” God to give me the right lottery numbers too. While He could if he wanted to, asking sincerely for them must not be a good way to get them, or the lottery would be won every week. We can trust God to give us what we need, but we don’t need a burning in the bosom to show us whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. Satan wanted Christ to jump off the cliff and trust God to save Him, but He wouldn’t do it. No more should we abandon the Rock of the Church Christ founded and ask God to show us the truth of what we abandoned it for. We can compare the Church Christ established 2000 years ago (but we have to look at the real Church, not straw men of it) with the Mormon Church and its origins, and use reason and love (and yes, of course, much prayer) to find the truth.

As a Mormon you can believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with you just didn’t pray sincerely enough or didn’t really want to know the truth. In looking to convert, aspirants are surrounded by people who think if they can’t believe, they’re lacking in sincerity or desire for truth. If you say the Catholic Church uses coercion, I can say the Mormons use peer pressure.

Now I do agree that God wants two-way communication with us, but He’s not the only one trying to speak to us. If the adversary hadn’t deceived quite a number of people, we wouldn’t have so many branches stemming from the Book of Mormon, because not only are Catholicism and Mormonism mutually exclusive, so are Mormonism and the Reorganized Church, and they hold to that same promise to show them what’s true. If I get to heaven I’ll be awfully surprised if certain members aren’t there–people who should have been able to discern the truth by sincerity and love if sincerity and love are the true method. (To my fellow Catholics, I hope these individuals were saved through the “baptism of desire,” since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize their baptisms.) It’s not always easy to discern God’s will as opposed to one’s own desires. When God spoke to prophets He made it pretty clear who was doing the talking. Moses had the burning bush, Gideon asked two miracles to make sure, and Samuel’s call was confirmed by a priest. They didn’t just satisfy themselves that it was God because it felt good.

Now don’t think that I consider it wrong to pray for the truth, or bad to pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. When I prayed for many years for God to show me the truth, I was gently and lovingly led away from the Book of Mormon and into the Catholic Church.

 

[Callirhoe]

Callirhoe,
I provided a partial response to your post in my post yesterday. I think it is fairly clear in Revelation 13:7 that the adversary has been allowed to have “power…over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

Rev. 13:8 “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The saints may have been overcome, but they would not worship him. He had power over all kindreds, tongues, and nations, but not the Church.

I don’t think it is a difficult thing to understand why God would allow that situation:

If one draws a continuum line with “forced behavior” on one end and “free will action” on the other end, then one would basically have a simple presentation of how the adversary desires to “rule”, versus how the Savior and God the Father provide “rulership”. The Savior and the Father certainly have the ultimate “authority” in the universe. How do They choose to bring about Their will? Do They do it by force, or by allowing the actions of humankind? I think They allow actions, allow choices, allow sinful attitudes and horrible treatment of one person by another person.

Yes, I am aware that the Joseph Smith Translation says Satan’s reason for leaving God was that he wanted to force all men to be saved, while taking the glory for himself. This, however, is just the Mormon view. The Catholic Church guesses (it’s not a doctrinal position) that he might have been jealous of God’s plan for humanity, and of course does not put Satan in any similar relationship to God the Father as Christ, who is begotten and not created. So I don’t actually agree that free will is God’s main mode of action and interference with free will the ultimate evil. God did give us free will, but he also gave us reason and good signposts to choose Him because He wants us to love Him and be with Him.

In keeping with that same allowance for choices and actions, does one not see that by allowing for the adversary to have had power even after Christ ascended, and by therefore allowing all kinds of belief systems including the authority that each of those belief systems claims is legitimate, God has allowed for humankind to have exactly the complete realm of choices that would be obviously needed in the world in order for people to really be allowed to choose for themselves? Your claim of authority is logical and makes sense to you and gives you exactly what you want–and God “wants” you to have exactly what you want, because that is inherent in His loving nature: allow free will action.

As my husband just pointed out on reading this, if Christ’s true Church was really in the wilderness and not available to be found, then people did not have the truth available for them to choose during that time. Those alive while the Church was in the wilderness were free to choose everything but the truth? That doesn’t fit with God’s loving provision of choices. The authority of the Church shows us the truth; it can’t force us to obey the truth (or we’d all be saints!). We are all, of course, supposed to be saints, a belief the Latter Day Saints seem to share.

Whether or not the authority you claim is legitimate is or is not legitimate, it gives many people precisely what they desire, especially when it comes to otherwise having to “trust” in whether the Holy Spirit is “with them” or not. By saying to oneself, “my priest (or my traditions) can decide that question”, then the individual person is “off the hook”.

Do you or do you not recognize the authority of your scriptures and church? If something you felt to be true conflicted with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, would you believe yourself or your scriptures? Do you have to decide for yourself whether murder is evil, or are you “off the hook” because it’s in the Ten Commandments? Yes, it is a great relief for me to have a wealth of tradition and knowledge on which to rely for the answers to most moral questions, rather than trusting my own conscience and hoping I’m interpreting Scripture correctly and praying sincerely enough to get the right answers directly from God. When I’m following God to the best of my ability and in communion with Him through my church, I do trust that the Holy Spirit is with me, even if something in this world interferes with my ability to feel His presence. As Joan of Arc said, I hope that I am in a state of grace, and pray that if I am not He will have mercy on me and bring me there.

Where this realm of choices leads is to a myriad of potential outcomes, and each person is choosing the outcome they desire for themselves. (But note that they may perhaps also try and influence sometimes by threats or condemnatory language, the outcome they desire for someone else, or assert that the authority they have chosen to follow is the authority that someone else must therefore follow.) It also leads to an outcome that each person is basically choosing an answer to the question, “how much truth do you want to live by?” just as they are faced with the questions, "how much love do you want to live by? and “how much faith do you want to live by?” God has allowed this outcome in the world–an outcome of individual decision-making, individual action, and each person taking full responsibility for their own choices and the results of those choices.

As far as asserting the authority I have chosen to follow is the authority you must follow . . . if you want to get to Heaven, it’s a good idea to find the true authority because it came from God.

I have authority over my children because I’m their mother and I love them. If I see them doing something that will hurt themselves or others, I’m not going to just watch and say, “That’s his choice.” If my child is hurting his brother, I will make it clear that the behavior is unacceptable. With what language should a church speak of sin? If by threats you mean, “If you do that you’ll go to hell unless you repent,” is that any more a threat than “If you jump from the bed you could break your arm”? Even the Book of Mormon says, “The Shepherd will protect his flock.” Yes, each person has a choice how much truth and goodness and love he will accept, but the Church has a responsibility to make sure the good choice is clear.