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

[ParkerD]

Parker,
A while back you asked me to do some research on William Tyndale. When I presented my findings on this man, you decided you didn’t want to discuss it anymore. Does the fact you’re bringing him up again mean you’re ready to discuss him? For the record one more time. The Church opposed his heretical prologue to several books of the New Testament, along with other heretical translations of the New Testament. The Bishop of England enlisted Sir Thomas Moore to analyze his writings and he came up with over two hundred different errors in his prologue and translations. This is why the Church opposed William Tyndale. Lastly, the state of England, King Henry VIII, head of the Church of England, tried Tyndale and executed him, not the Catholic Church. With all due respect, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I have presented you with this information before, so you can not claim ignorance to these facts, unless of course, you didn’t read anything I posted previously.
I would be glad to have the discussion on Tyndale you declined to have before. Know this however, I will correct the record on this heretic every time he’s brought up, discussion or no.
In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
The reason I didn’t discuss further William Tyndale’s execution and the way his attempts to translate the Bible into common English were fought by the Catholic church, is that I did not see that arguing the points with you would be worthwhile at all. I have an encyclopedia article that says “Tyndale was executed by Roman Catholic authorities as a Protestant heretic in Belgium.” (That is from World Book Encyclopedia, 1990.) I have done other reading that indicates the Catholic church was involved in influencing the decision for his execution. I think it would be quite simple to follow the trail that could shed light on the whole story. I find it repugnant that his attempts to bring the Bible into a form that could be read from by common English people in the privacy of their own home were if not accepted, then at least taken on by the Catholic authorities as something they should do themselves, since of course they didn’t like his particular translation or the introduction. There is a principle called freedom of speech, plus if his introduction was based on what he had found while reading the Bible, then the suppression of that freedom of speech was a form of protectionism that I think was wrong on the face of it.

I did read what you wrote before. I just could tell it had a very “Catholic” version of the events about William Tyndale, and I thought at that time I would leave the topic alone.

 

[ParkerD]

Arandur,
In response:

My terminology (“demonstrably Catholic”) was a challenge–one that would make a good thread. In other words, I challenge anyone to compare historical writings of the early Church and find it more similar to any group today than it is to the Catholic Church.

If by “historical writings of the early Church” you mean the New Testament itself, then I can easily find that the Mormon Church fits that more tightly than the Catholic church. If you move the timetable past 100AD, then I would say the church was already being changed so any writings after that besides those of John already had marks of those changes happening.

In context of this discussion in particular, I challenge you to find any significant amount of historical evidence that shows any group, even a heretical offshoot, bore any significant resemblance to the Mormon church. Then compare to the evidence of similarities that the mainline apostolic Church has with the Catholic Church.

I think the changes went in several directions at one time, and suppression of what became called “heretical” beliefs would have also led to historical writings about those beliefs being significantly tainted by the historians who would bring their biases to the writing process. But the last sentence about “evidence of similarities” is easily challenged.

You’re griping about the pope? Your “prophet” makes more arrogant claims than our Petrine successor does. I really don’t understand why any Smithians have any problem whatsoever with the idea of a pope.

I disagree entirely. Of course many will say Joseph Smith made “arrogant claims”, especially when they themselves don’t believe that prophetic guidance for the world and members of the church Christ established, would be important to the world.

But to say Thomas S Monson makes arrogant claims, I think has no basis in fact, unless you mean that by saying he has the same keys that Peter held, that is being arrogant.

I actually wish Catholic popes would have recognized whenever that office was first instituted, that the Holy Spirit’s guidance is an individual thing and not a guarantee for their leadership body. Then they might have been and now be more careful about taking the obvious teachings of the Bible and changing them to fit their own thinking and traditions.

To clarify, though, neither the Church then nor now follows the “teachings of a pope” in lieu of the teachings of Christ. We follow the teachings of Christ transmitted by His choice and authority through the apostles (and original disciples) to their successors and guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying all the words outside of the Bible itself could be thrown out and never used (I wish that would happen), and the original teachings in and of themselves would sustain all Catholic practices and teachings?

It’s quite a different story for Smithians, whose faith ultimately rests on faith in Joseph Smith himself. Thus, yours is a religion of a single man, not of Christ.

No, Christ’s religion was established with Him as the foundation rock, and the Holy Spirit as a guide to each individual member after they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost which was to come immediately following a covenant baptism chosen by the follower of Christ. My faith rests in the communication from God through the Holy Spirit, directly to me personally and individually without anyone else involved. That is called being spiritually alive–the opposite of spiritual death.

I hope you know that “Peter” is the Greek form of “Cepha” and that both mean “rock.” Simon was NAMED “rock.” This is a fact that cannot be dodged in a proper interpretation of the passage, and the reason that many Protestant scholars have admitted that Jesus included Peter in His meaning and in this special mission. God-instituted name changes are important and consistently represent titles and missions among His faithful. And then, of course, there were ministerial keys given, along with powers. This indicates an office. Of course, all this is explored in much further depth in other threads. It’s just absurd to say that the “rock” terminology has nothing to do with Peter, or that there was no office spoken of in that passage.

Christ called Simon, “Simon” most of the time including after His resurrection. He had added a designation–hadn’t changed his name. Peter considered Christ to be the rock of the church, not himself.

All the apostles had apostolic keys, and Peter, James and John each had special keys associated with the mount of Transfiguration experience. John was alive when supposedly another man either thought he himself was in charge of the church at that point on the earth, or other people wrote that another man was in charge, but no evidence suggests that John thought that, and the fact that John received significant guiding revelation for the church when he wrote the visions of the book of Revelation, shows that he was certainly the church leader recognized by Christ as the one with authority.

 

[Arandur]

I find it repugnant that his attempts to bring the Bible into a form that could be read from by common English people in the privacy of their own home were if not accepted, then at least taken on by the Catholic authorities as something they should do themselves, since of course they didn’t like his particular translation or the introduction. There is a principle called freedom of speech, plus if his introduction was based on what he had found while reading the Bible, then the suppression of that freedom of speech was a form of protectionism that I think was wrong on the face of it.

You should read up on some history to dispel your ignorance.

1. The Church already had produced hundreds of translations of the Scriptures into vernacular languages, well before the Protestant Reformation. This is a common Protestant lie.
2. “Freedom of speech” was not a developed concept until much later. How ethnocentric and ahistoric a view. But typical for Americans. Such freedom did arise out of the Catholic university system, but the concept developed over time and has always had limits. Temporal rulers have always tended to impose harsher judgments and penalties for any types of dissension; it was these that most severely punished heretics, for the rulers saw heretics as traitors and dangerous rabble-rousing dissidents threatening the stability of their rule.

Arandur,

If by “historical writings of the early Church” you mean the New Testament itself, then I can easily find that the Mormon Church fits that more tightly than the Catholic church.

 

[Arandur]

Are you saying all the words outside of the Bible itself could be thrown out and never used (I wish that would happen), and the original teachings in and of themselves would sustain all Catholic practices and teachings?

No. Where do you get that? The Bible is a small fraction of the Deposit of Faith. It is a PART of Tradition, as is clearly shown by how it came to be. It serves a very important role and acts as a benchmark, something that supports and does not contradict any true belief. But as John says, Jesus’s teachings could not be contained in any mere collection of books. I’m surprised you would support this “Bible alone” idea in light of this and the fact that such an idea runs quite counter to your own church’s teachings.

No, Christ’s religion was established with Him as the foundation rock, and the Holy Spirit as a guide to each individual member after they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost which was to come immediately following a covenant baptism chosen by the follower of Christ. My faith rests in the communication from God through the Holy Spirit, directly to me personally and individually without anyone else involved. That is called being spiritually alive–the opposite of spiritual death.

Then you make yourself higher than God. That is what it means to rely on your own personal authority. That is what leads to countless divisions in churches and countless divisions in doctrines. It is a formula that is very obviously false and of the devil (yes, I am saying this belief of yours is very clearly of the devil), because it only produces myriad contradictions among people. Truth cannot contradict Truth. And we are many times in Scripture warned against this, and of the power of our spiritual adversaries in leading us astray by convincing us of some novel idea and to accept it on the authority of our own interpretation (believing it to be spiritual inspiration to ourselves, though it comes from the wrong spiritual sources).

Christ called Simon, “Simon” most of the time including after His resurrection. He had added a designation–hadn’t changed his name. Peter considered Christ to be the rock of the church, not himself.

Where do you see that? Care to post a word comparison in the NT after Simon is named Peter?

All the apostles had apostolic keys, and Peter, James and John each had special keys associated with the mount of Transfiguration experience. John was alive when supposedly another man either thought he himself was in charge of the church at that point on the earth, or other people wrote that another man was in charge, but no evidence suggests that John thought that, and the fact that John received significant guiding revelation for the church when he wrote the visions of the book of Revelation, shows that he was certainly the church leader recognized by Christ as the one with authority.

You misunderstand the role of the Apostles, the differences in the keys, the nature of revelation, the historical events of the time, and the canonization of the books of the Bible. The original Apostles had direct contact with Christ and had a special duty to transmit what they were given through this gift. Peter’s keys were different, with the power to bind and loose what the others bound and loosed. A revelation does not suddenly make someone head of the Church and nowhere does such a standard exist in Scripture. John never tried to exercise headship of the Church; that office was recognized by many to have passed to another, and there is no evidence anyone thought John had it at the time. And those who authored Biblical books were not, by virtue of their authorship, head of the Church at one time or another. Some writings even by those same authors were not canonized, even though they were authoritative in various fashions. And Revelation almost didn’t even make it.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

You should read up on some history to dispel your ignorance.

1. The Church already had produced hundreds of translations of the Scriptures into vernacular languages, well before the Protestant Reformation. This is a common Protestant lie.
2. “Freedom of speech” was not a developed concept until much later. How ethnocentric and ahistoric a view. But typical for Americans. Such freedom did arise out of the Catholic university system, but the concept developed over time and has always had limits. Temporal rulers have always tended to impose harsher judgments and penalties for any types of dissension; it was these that most severely punished heretics, for the rulers saw heretics as traitors and dangerous rabble-rousing dissidents threatening the stability of their rule.

ParkerD;5785214:

Arandur,

Start a thread and give it a try. It would be fun to see the side-by-side comparison list.
I was referring to all historical documents we have around that time that show how the Church organized and was operated, what debates there were, what heretical movements there were, etc. These explain a context in time and demonstrate what the early Christians believed.

If there were “marks of those changes,” we should be able to see the original state and the change from it. There are plenty of documents preserved which show both the beliefs of the Church and those of the heretics. Dissenting works were not purged. And yet we see no “president,” “quorum,” “Prophet,” “stake,” multiplicity of gods, “telestial” realm or three heavens, etc etc.

What “changes,” what directions, what evidence, and when? I have questioned dozens of Smithians in person (and probably hundreds in forums) over the years for these answers and have never seen them. Please be the first. Of course, this is part of a “Great Apostasy” discussion better placed on a different thread.
As for suppression of “heretical” beliefs, two things. First, we’ve got lots of documentation of those beliefs and their own arguments, so we know the Church didn’t purge them, but preserved them. They are also preserved outside the Church.

Second, I find the very typical Mormon and Protestant fashion with which you designate “heretical” in quotes quite disingenuous. You speak of them as if they were not heretical and not false beliefs, but valid teachings. And yet your own doctrines quite strongly disagree with them. So you should clearly consider them heretical, as well, and thank the Church for opposing them.

Oh? Why not try?

What do you think makes your office of President different than the office of pope, in terms of authority in the Church?
So you say he has the keys that Peter held, and that’s okay. Well, we say the pope holds the keys of Peter. So why is it okay for you and not for us?

Because it is BOTH an individual thing AND a guarantee to Christ’s apostles and their successors (who hold ordained office).

If it were just an individual thing–well, we see the fruits of that in the tens of thousands of sects founded on personal authority and interpretations (including the various Smithian sects).


You really need to read some history about early Christian practice, ecumenical councils, the writings of the ECFs and of Doctors of the Church. Few were popes, btw.
And to make this claim despite how your church leaders operate? The evidence of changing things to fit their personal preference is so much greater.

That was a great, concise list of responses.

Sadly, the arrogance of Tyndale and Joe Smith who felt they had the authority or the clarity to rewrite God’s word backfired on them horridly.

**If Joe Smith had actually heard from God the text for the book of mormon, why has it had over 4,000 changes through the years? (LOL) God makes no mistakes; God warned us of false prophets; God warned us of false prophets such as Joe Smith. **

Joe Smith’s uneducated convoluted plagiarism; bizarre and outlandish copy & pasting to piece together the book of mormon is nothing short of insidious heresy and blashpemy.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

**The following was written in the Nauvoo Expositor newspaper by very wise mormon dissidents regarding Joe Smith.

This is the same paper that Joe ordered ruined. He ordered the printing presses to be destroyed. Why? Because the paper had printed the truth on Joe and his sexual liasons - many with wifes who were married at the time.

Little tyrannical Joe was disgusted by the truth**. Why are mormons blind to this?

The actual paper can be found here: Thank God for the really strong truthful people.

**“We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith, and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and the Apostles;…” **

 

[MormonAddict]

Agreed, just like how the 8 witnesses of the divine origin of the Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book of the Shakers (delivered by an angel) never denied their testimonies.

"Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’ " (50) But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers, (51) while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.

 

[StLawrenceFan]

Just one piece of feedback…quoted from here:

**"The Book of Mormon’s reliance on concepts found in the Bible and pre-existing biblical doctrine, and its attempt to mimic Elizabethton English, original language cadences, and the heartfelt passion of prophets that lived their revelations exposes it as a “pastiche.” Pronounced “pass-teesh,” this word is used to describe “a dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists.” In other words, the Book of Mormon is not a genuine new revelation, but rather a blatant imitation of the real thing. When reading the Book of Mormon it becomes readily apparent that it is a pastiche of the Bible. The internal evidence indicates that this book was written by an individual who received no new revelations from God, but rather compiled a book that presents a partial and misleading collage of biblical concepts and a mosaic of scriptural words and phrases mixed with false information.

I believe a careful survey of the Book of Mormon reveals it is not “another testament of Jesus Christ”, but rather a “false testament of Jesus Christ.” **​

Joe Smith was a con man and a literary hack.
Why else has the bogus ‘book of mormon’ been changed over 4,000 times?

Why won’t mormons ever educate themselves on the truth?

The ex-mormons in Nauvoo surely did. Very very wise people.

Best place for mormon truth is here…

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

"Joseph Smith only had three witnesses who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the book. [In Shaker writings,] there are over a hundred pages of testimony from ‘Living Witnesses.’ " (50) But the quantity of witnesses has little meaning if those witnesses afterwards admit that they were wrong. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Shaker Roll and Book afterwards fell into discredit and dishonor among the Shakers themselves and was abandoned by its leaders and most believers, (51) while the Book of Mormon continued to be a vitally important part of Mormon scripture to which each of the witnesses, including Martin Harris, continued to testify, even while outside of the Church.

Demonstrate that the 8 witnesses of the Shaker text denied their witness. Remember, the claim made frequently here is that the Mormon witnesses may have left your church or been excommunicated at some point, however they never denied their witness. And interestingly, that MI article that you quoted from (please cite your sources) states that “their belief is that they were deceived by false spirits, and were unable, in many cases, to distinguish the true from the false. That is to say, they hold to their faith in ‘spiritual communications,’ so called; but repudiate much in which they formerly had faith, believing this which they now reject to have come from the evil one”. Therefore, those that claim this did not believe that nothing happened or that it was made up, but that they were deceived by false spirits.

 

[newman000]

Michael,
The reason I didn’t discuss further William Tyndale’s execution and the way his attempts to translate the Bible into common English were fought by the Catholic church, is that I did not see that arguing the points with you would be worthwhile at all.[SIGN] I have an encyclopedia article that says “Tyndale was executed by Roman Catholic authorities as a Protestant heretic in Belgium.” (That is from World Book Encyclopedia, 1990.)[/SIGN]
Regarding this post William Tyndale was arrested by English authorities and was presumably betrayed by his friend Phillip the agent of either of Henry or of English ecclesiastics, Not by the Roman catholic authorities. He was held and Tried at the Vilvoorde castle in Belgium.
[SIGN]I have done other reading that indicates the Catholic church was involved in influencing the decision for his execution.[/SIGN]
it was the emissaries of Wosley and Henry viii that were charged to track William down not the catholic church. He was charged with heresy and treason for breaking the the 1408 proclamation against unauthorized of the bible. This was a direct response to Wycliffs heretical attempt to translate the bible
[SIGN] I think it would be quite simple to follow the trail that could shed light on the whole story. I find it repugnant that his attempts to bring the Bible into a form that could be read from by common English people in the privacy of their own home were if not accepted, then at least taken on by the Catholic authorities as something they should do themselves, since of course they didn’t like his particular translation or the introduction.[/SIGN]

It was not the introduction that the church disagreed with it was the translation and changing of words like “priest, church and charity” became “elder, congregation and love”.
[SIGN]There is a principle called freedom of speech, plus if his introduction was based on what he had found while reading the Bible, then the suppression of that freedom of speech was a form of protectionism that I think was wrong on the face of it.[/SIGN]
There was no freedom of speech in the 1500 the protestants were fighting for that freedom against the church and Henry viii there for could not be a form of protectionism.

I did read what you wrote before. I just could tell it had a very “Catholic” version of the events about William Tyndale, and I thought at that time I would leave the topic alone.

 

[mjf001]

Michael,
The reason I didn’t discuss further William Tyndale’s execution and the way his attempts to translate the Bible into common English were fought by the Catholic church, is that I did not see that arguing the points with you would be worthwhile at all. I have an encyclopedia article that says “Tyndale was executed by Roman Catholic authorities as a Protestant heretic in Belgium.” (That is from World Book Encyclopedia, 1990.) I have done other reading that indicates the Catholic church was involved in influencing the decision for his execution. I think it would be quite simple to follow the trail that could shed light on the whole story. I find it repugnant that his attempts to bring the Bible into a form that could be read from by common English people in the privacy of their own home were if not accepted, then at least taken on by the Catholic authorities as something they should do themselves, since of course they didn’t like his particular translation or the introduction. There is a principle called freedom of speech, plus if his introduction was based on what he had found while reading the Bible, then the suppression of that freedom of speech was a form of protectionism that I think was wrong on the face of it.

I did read what you wrote before. I just could tell it had a very “Catholic” version of the events about William Tyndale, and I thought at that time I would leave the topic alone.

I have one other point I’d like to make. Tyndale was a priest with unorthodox views. He went to his Bishop for permission to translate the Bible and was denied, in part because of his unorthodox views. The fact is, there were English translations on the market, but they were not being purchased. The Church had several reasons for not wanting a new English translation out on the market. As a priest, Tyndale should have accepted the decision in humility. As a priest he took vows, which he broke when he left for Worms, hooked up with Martin Luther, and translated a very Lutheran sounding version of the New Testament.

You have asserted, several times, that the Church’s problem was having an English translation to the Bible. You have also had this assertion corrected several times. One of the duties of the Magesterium is to protect the Deposit of Faith, which includes the Bible. Protecting the Deposit of the Faith, in this sense, means ensuring the correct translation and interpretation of the Bible. Martin Luther’s interpretation was filled with error - anything stemming from that can be supposed to be filled with error. Tyndale’s end result, as affirmed by the Bishop of England and Sir Thomas Moore was filled with error (2,000 to be exact). It was the duty of the Magesterium of the Church to oppose this translation.

I realize this goes against your world view, but this is how it is. There are not many truths, there is one truth. God didn’t lead me to his Church because I couldn’t accept the LDS church, he led me there because I prayed for him to lead me the truth. This is where he led me. Believe me, at the time, this is the last place I wanted to be, but I accepted where he led me. I never had strong convictions about anything before my conversion, now I do. My reason tells me this is the truth, the evidence tells me this is the truth, and the spirit has confirmed to me this is the truth. Not fear, hope, and a love that grows, and surprises me in its depths at times.
In Christ,
Michael

 

[jake23]

Please watch the DVD’s ‘the Bible vs. the book of mormon’ and ‘the book of mormon vs. DNA’ you can also pull them up on you tube. They will help expose the lies of the false prophet Joseph Smith. It should be our christian responability to help all members of this cult see the truth before damnation meets them on there death bed!

 

[Garland]

God Bless us all, Morman and Catholic and everyone else, that being said, William Whalens book The Latter- Day Saints in The Modern Day World, is a wonderful read. It exposes a lot of mistakes in the book of mormon that have been changed since it was written, 4000, at least from the original. It is charitable and presents a lot of things brought about the mormons themselves. The cult is a secret sociaty known only by the highups of church. Most regular mormons are not aware of some of the most foolish things imaginable that take place in the temples. I pray that all people should put JESUS first and come home to his AWEthinic original faith taught only by the ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH, in its fullness. God bless all. Garland

 

[ricko]

King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”

Catholic Answers

Seems like the King also agreed that his translation was incorrect.

 

[ParkerD]

King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”

Catholic Answers

Seems like the King also agreed that his translation was incorrect.

Rick and Michael,
If one wanted a bit more objectivity in researching the topic of Tyndale’s Bible translation and other translations of the time, one could start with the following article and its source references:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations

I really don’t trust Henry VIII as an unbiased adherer to standards of moral impeccability.

 

[chris2009]

Please watch the DVD’s ‘the Bible vs. the book of mormon’ and ‘the book of mormon vs. DNA’ you can also pull them up on you tube. They will help expose the lies of the false prophet Joseph Smith. It should be our christian responability to help all members of this cult see the truth before damnation meets them on there death bed!

If following the teachings of the LDS church by living a virtuous life, refraining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea and harmful drugs, paying tithing and fast offerings, serving those around me, studying the scriptures, attending the temple, among other things – if all these things bring me damnation, then bring on the damnation!

If the Mormons go to hell they will turn it around and make a heaven out of it. I know this is a true principal.

After centuries of darkness, most people don’t know what is true anymore. To damn something means to stop it’s progression, just like a river is damned. I am wise enough to know that doing the things above will NOT damn me despite superstitions and philosophies of men that have been handed down through the dark ages!

 

[chris2009]

God Bless us all, Morman and Catholic and everyone else, that being said, William Whalens book The Latter- Day Saints in The Modern Day World, is a wonderful read. It exposes a lot of mistakes in the book of mormon that have been changed since it was written, 4000, at least from the original. It is charitable and presents a lot of things brought about the mormons themselves. The cult is a secret sociaty known only by the highups of church. Most regular mormons are not aware of some of the most foolish things imaginable that take place in the temples. I pray that all people should put JESUS first and come home to his AWEthinic original faith taught only by the ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH, in its fullness. God bless all. Garland

Are you kidding me? How many times have you been inside a Mormon temple? I for myself have been inside many temples throughout the world many times and go on a regular basis. Perhaps I missed all the “foolish things imaginable” that take place there. Please don’t try to teach things you know nothing about.

Now, regarding the Book of Mormon. When it was translated by the prophet Joseph Smith, did you know that it was translated word for word without punctuation, paragraphs, or chapter headings? Joseph would read aloud and Oliver Cowdery would write exactly what he said. Joseph would spell the names and places. They would take a break mid sentence and Joseph would pick up again right where they left off without skipping a beat. After 531 pages of this, without punctuation, how many error do you think were possible? Then they took the scratch paper they used for the manuscript and rewrote the entire Book of Mormon again by hand (531 pages) on other scratch paper for the printer. Then the printer using movable type, printed 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon from these manuscripts (with no punctuation). They would use movable type and had to put in each letter, one… at… a… time. Then they printed 5,000 copies of page 1. Then 5,000 copies of page 2… you get the idea… all the way to 531 pages!

After the first printing, how many puntuation errors do you think there were? The anti-Mormon’s love to leave this part out, because they are dishonest. They try to imply that the church is hidding something or changing the Book of Mormon to hide something. In reality, the Book of Mormon is the same today as it was first translated with rare exception.

Another question… what exactly is a cult? Do you even know? Or do you just like to throw around a word that sounds mysterious and spooky? It’s a great way to scare away those who are investigating the church.

When I look up “cult” at www.dictionary.com it says the following,

1. “a particular system of religious worship.” So I guess you’re a cult too! Doesn’t that make you feel great inside?
2. “an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing” Elvis has a cult following. We happen to follow “Jesus Christ” being “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” and reading the Book of Mormon - Another Testiment of Jesus Christ.
3. “the object of such devotion”. Gosh, I still don’t see what’s wrong with the word. From this it sounds like a good thing, but I always thought it was an evil word. Or maybe I’m confusing “cult” with “occult”. But who cares, right? Slander is no biggie.
4. “a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.”. Again, we believe in Jesus Christ. Don’t you also? So far I think we’re both 4 for 4!
5. “a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.” Catholics don’t have any sacred symbols, do they?
6. “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.” OK, this is probably your favorite definition. I suppose many consider Mormon beliefs to be false or unorthodox (non-traditional). Wait a minute… didn’t the Jews say that about Jesus when he came to them? They called him a zealot with false doctrine and having a devil. Do Mormons live outside conventional society? I don’t think so. You may be thinking of small off-shoots from the 1800’s, but these are not members of our church. It would be like calling Protestants Catholic. They broke off too, right?
7. “the members of such a religion or sect.” Again, see above.
8. “any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.” This is most definately not Mormons. We use modern medicine.
9. “of or pertaining to a cult.” kinda repetitive here…
10. “of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.” Yes, the Mormons are a small group of 14 millions members world-wide. The 4th largest church in America and the 5th largest church in North America…very small.

Regarding the “highups” of the church… I’m here to tell you you’re completely wrong. I have meet many prophets and apostles of this church. I have had them in my home. I have sat down to dinner with them and talked with them. These are honest men of God and they devote all their time and talents to the church. They are not paid for their work as you would like to imply. I remember Pres. Benson used to live in a little apartment that overlooked the Salt Lake temple. These are humble men. The “highups” of the church like bishops and stake presidents – I have personally worked with many in different cities around this country. They are honest, faithful men of God. They have a deep concern for the welfare of those around them. They spend hours and hours for NO pay working to serve others. If you’re going to talk about the church, make sure you get it right. I speak from experience.

 

[chris2009]

–Michael, no need to go on with this. You see, mormons run out of answers immediately and they hide in panic because they realize they have no foundation to Joe’s Myth. There is no shred to prove any of Joe’s Myth - either archaeologically or anthropologically. Zilch; Nada.

Regarding William Tyndale? Who cares? Just another heretic against the Church that Christ built.

Just the way it is.

The only good part about Tyndale is that he went to Oxford.
I attended College there for one year. Been to his Alma Mater - Magdalen College. Beautiful.
Oscar Wilde went there, too.

Tyndale was another confused dude…in a religion that came along in the 1500’s.

I’ve been in Bars older than his religion. The Turf Tavern, (Oxford) being one of them.

…and so it goes.

Not that it should replace a testimony from the Holy Ghost, but there is plenty of scientific evidence of the truthfulness of this church. I would love to get started here. Ask Hugh Nibley sometime…maybe you’re eyes will be opened. But first a person needs to have an honest desire to find the truth – not just to prove it wrong.

 

[chris2009]

–Michael, no need to go on with this. You see, mormons run out of answers immediately and they hide in panic because they realize they have no foundation to Joe’s Myth. There is no shred to prove any of Joe’s Myth - either archaeologically or anthropologically. Zilch; Nada.

Regarding William Tyndale? Who cares? Just another heretic against the Church that Christ built.

Just the way it is.

The only good part about Tyndale is that he went to Oxford.
I attended College there for one year. Been to his Alma Mater - Magdalen College. Beautiful.
Oscar Wilde went there, too.

Tyndale was another confused dude…in a religion that came along in the 1500’s.

I’ve been in Bars older than his religion. The Turf Tavern, (Oxford) being one of them.

…and so it goes.

How did Peter know that Jesus was the Christ – the Promised Messiah? I can assure you it wasn’t because “he looked like Him”. Remember what the Savior said to Peter?

“13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt 16:13-17)

Peter KNEW through revelation from Father in Heaven. Spirit speaking with spirit.

However, we can fan the flame of our testimony through scientific evidences. But these should not be the foundation.

 

[chris2009]

–Michael, no need to go on with this. You see, mormons run out of answers immediately and they hide in panic because they realize they have no foundation to Joe’s Myth. There is no shred to prove any of Joe’s Myth - either archaeologically or anthropologically. Zilch; Nada.

Regarding William Tyndale? Who cares? Just another heretic against the Church that Christ built.

Just the way it is.

The only good part about Tyndale is that he went to Oxford.
I attended College there for one year. Been to his Alma Mater - Magdalen College. Beautiful.
Oscar Wilde went there, too.

Tyndale was another confused dude…in a religion that came along in the 1500’s.

I’ve been in Bars older than his religion. The Turf Tavern, (Oxford) being one of them.

…and so it goes.

If you like evidence so much… here’s an interesting piece…

I’m sure you’ve heard of the word “Deseret” from Mormons before. Where does it come from? There is Deseret Industries, Deseret News, Deseret Bank, Deseret Book Store, it was originally purposed that Utah territory be called “Deseret”, etc…

The word comes from the Book of Mormon. It is only mentioned one time in the entire book. Ether 2:3 “And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee…”

These were the Jaradites. They came from the Tower of Babel some time following the flood of Noah. They traveled to the American continent. In addition, the first Egyptians traveled from the Tower – Noah’s son Ham had a daughter named Egyptus. She and her son Pharoah established the Egyptian Empire.(This is found in the Pearl of Great Price) Scientists now have evidence that Egypt was started by a Queen or Matriarchy.

The Ancient Egyptian written language doesn’t use vowels much like Hebrew. Scientists have found a word called DSRT and all agree should be seperated by short "e"s. However, they believe the “S” has a stronger “Shhh” sound to it. Scientists call it “Deshret” or the Red Crown. This Red Crown was the southern kingdom of Egypt and was represented by a crown with a coil (antenae?) coming out of it. There have been several instances when DSRT or the Red Crown symbol was substituted for the “honey bee” symbol in Egyptology. The honey bee was so sacred to the Egyptians, it is suspected that instead of repeating that sacred word, they replaced another symbol to represent it – namely DSRT or the Red Crown. Or in other words, Deshret was by interpretation, a honey bee.

Based on this, it would seem appropriate that a Queen first establish Egypt.

Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:23-25 “23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.”

Maybe Joseph Smith just got lucky.

lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/deseret.html

per-ankh.co.uk/featured_articles/the_crowns_of_ancient_egypt.asp