The Book of Mormon

[aspen]

Why is it false? Yes FHII, this is a serious question.....

 

[tomwebster]

Why is it false? Yes FHII, this is a serious question.....

Read it and find out.

 

[aspen]

Read it and find out.

I've read it twice.

 

[biggandyy]

Then that wasn't a serious question you asked.

 

[FHII]

I haven't read it. I am prone not to believe it because of what the Bible says. I believe John closed the book on the Holy Scriptures and no more is needed nor pending.

However, I have an active mind and would listen. For me to say it is false would be wrong, as I have not read it. I am pretty keen on Mormon History though, as they were a people. However, right now, my time is filled with trying to understand the Bible I have and some of the Saints who commented on it after it. The Book of Mormon is not on my reading list at this time.

So sorry, can't give you an answer on something I've never read.

 

[aspen]

Then that wasn't a serious question you asked.

I am trying to start a discussion, not gather information for myself about the content of the Book of Mormon.

I haven't read it. I am prone not to believe it because of what the Bible says. I believe John closed the book on the Holy Scriptures and no more is needed nor pending. However, I have an active mind and would listen. For me to say it is false would be wrong, as I have not read it. I am pretty keen on Mormon History though, as they were a people. However, right now, my time is filled with trying to understand the Bible I have and some of the Saints who commented on it after it. The Book of Mormon is not on my reading list at this time. So sorry, can't give you an answer on something I've never read.

That makes sense - thanks for responding FHII.

 

[rockytopva]

The book of Mormon... A pretty good copy and paste as far as I am concerned. Remember the devil did this with Jesus... Cutting and pasting scripture mingled with his own deception. Oh beware of it! For Lucifer is an angel of light! He knows how to take 99% truth and mix it with 1% lie to deceive we gullible humans! Notice these words... "shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited." And where did following Joseph Smith lead the people? In a salt land and not inhabited?

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. - Jeremiah 17: 5,6,7,8

And then the bible says...

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. - Galatians 1:5-7

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11: 4,13,14,15

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:6,7,8,9

 

[Jake]

The Book of Mormon is a supposed account of Jesus visiting the people's on the American continents during His earthly ministry. If it were speaking of another man visiting the american continents, then it could be true, but it's referring to Jesus and the written word - the Bible - which God has given to us as His inspired Word contains no references to Jesus visiting anywhere else, but where it is stated in the Bible. Jesus did not visit the american continents in His earthly life. It is not the same Jesus. They believe Jesus and Satan are brothers.

It is also not true because of the way the Book of Mormon was brought about. Joseph Smith did not know which church to attend, he prayed and prayed, he and a couple of other friends, one day, saw an angel of light, who was the supposed angel "Moroni", who is also the supposed last author of the Book of Mormon. He presented Joseph Smith with golden plates that were supposively written in some sort of Egyptian hieroglypics, but this can not be proven because the plates are nowhere to be found. Joseph Smith, with the help of Patrick Caldwell, translated the plates into the Book of Mormon.

They didn't stop there though, Smith also wrote the "Pearl of Great Price" and the "Doctrine of Covenants", which are futher revelation to Joseph Smith (who was a supposed prophet), to the now "true church". In these, Joseph Smith received a revelation that polygamy was accepted and they should move to the area of Utah. Which later years, could not become a state due to all the polygamy going on, so then Bringham Young received a new revelation stating that polygamy was now not ok, so that Utah could become an official state of the united states of america.

This is my understanding anyway, my sister-in-law is mormon and converted my brother.

 

[lawrance]

I have tried to read it but i find my self getting so angry when reading it that i throw the book at the ground because it's such a disgracefull load of trash or i get so bored with it that i can not read any more then a few pages at a time. but when reading our good kjv Bible i can not put it down as i find it so interesting and never boring at all.
The only reason why i tried to read the Mormons book was to know where they were coming from as they come across nice enough people, but lost.

 

[aspen]

The best way to understand Mormon beliefs is to get a hold of their missionary training book - it is concise and tells you everything the Book of Mormon leaves out. The BOM was written before Brigham Young became the second prophet - he added most of the beliefs Mormons hold to be true, today. I understand the boredom aspect of reading the BOM, MR - it is poorly written and obviously plagiarized - in fact, it contains 21 verses from Shakespeare and borrows liberally from the KJV including verse numbers.

Great post Jake - I agree with you. Joseph Smith did have the vision of moving West, but he was killed trying to break out of jail before they left Missouri. The original Pearl of Great Price was thought to be lost until the middle of the 20th century when someone in the church found it in the Temple library - unfortunately for Mormons, the prophet decided to turn it over to Egyptologists to study. The experts returned the original and declared that it was actually a common papyrus of a funeral rite from the Egyptian Book of the Dead - commonly found in America in the 1800s because Americans were interested in Egyptian artifacts and collected them.

I think it is important to point out that Mormonism is not valid based on archaeology (there is no evidence of the Nephite / Laminite Empires in the Americas), historical evidence (America, Israel, Egypt), or genetics (Native Americans are related to Asians, not Egyptians). It is not simply the Bible that disproves Mormonism - we can safely say that it is a false doctrine because several fields of study agree.

I think it is foolish for Mormons to discount the evidence simply because they consider it to be bias against them and false, worldly and secular. I also think it is foolish for Fundamentalist, literalist, Christians to discount scientific and literary evidence against the Creation Story, Flood account. Job, and Jonah. None of these stories are meant to be taken literally - there is as much evidence against it among academics as there is against Mormon history and doctrine. Why are we so frightened by this evidence? The stories are most certainly inspired by God and supposed to be in the Bible, but we are not supposed to get caught up in the details and miss the larger point.

 

[sdcougar]

Why is it false? Yes FHII, this is a serious question.....

First, as someone pointed out: the cut and paste job, it contains a lot of Scripture, e.g. over a dozen chapters of Isaiah straight from the KJV....which makes it false because the BOM was supposed to have been written over a millenium before the KJV.

Then there are all the anachronisms....things mentioned that did not exist during the period of history that it covers, ...elephants in America [Ether 9:19], steel [1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Ether], concrete [Helaman ch. 3], Ox, Cow, Cattle in America [Ether 9:18], Crops that never existed in America prior to European settlement: flax, barley, wheat, figs, olives.

etc, etc.

Here is a youtube video that conclusively shows that Joseph Smith was a fraud through actual historical documents.

this is an hour long

here is an excellent short version of the same subject matter 2 min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0u6clxJmI8&feature=related

 

[Redeemed86]

I also think it is foolish for Fundamentalist, literalist, Christians to discount scientific and literary evidence against the Creation Story, Flood account. Job, and Jonah. None of these stories are meant to be taken literally - there is as much evidence against it among academics as there is against Mormon history and doctrine. Why are we so frightened by this evidence? The stories are most certainly inspired by God and supposed to be in the Bible, but we are not supposed to get caught up in the details and miss the larger point.

I don't see a common denominator between the heresy of Mormonism and the truth in the bible. It's easy to find lies in a book based on them. I also don't believe these are just "stories".

I think the scientists beliefs matter in this area. An unbelieving scientist (or civilian) would never acknowledge God in anything if they believe in a Godless universe. Anything that requires faith in him would have to be reduced to man's ability and rationality or else it's make believe.

The Evolution Theory lie being thought good enough for worldwide textbooks, makes me question the source of any literary/scientific "truth" on these subjects outside the bible.

 

[sdcougar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d0TyIWhfjQ&feature=watch_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCd7v0ttBhk&feature=related

 

[aspen]

I don't see a common denominator between the heresy of Mormonism and the truth in the bible. It's easy to find lies in a book based on them. I also don't believe these are just "stories".

I think the scientists beliefs matter in this area. An unbelieving scientist (or civilian) would never acknowledge God in anything if they believe in a Godless universe. Anything that requires faith in him would have to be reduced to man's ability and rationality or else it's make believe.

The Evolution Theory lie being thought good enough for worldwide textbooks, makes me question the source of any literary/scientific "truth" on these subjects outside the bible.

Okay I think I am getting what you are saying - I am a bit dense today because I am sick, so bear with me. Are you saying that the errors in the Book of Mormon are self evident apart from science or sources outside the Bible?

I think I need to be clear about one thing - I really, truly believe that everything in the Bible is inspired, on point, supposed to be there and tremendously valuable for our sanctification. Therefore, I do not believe the creation story is 'just a story'. To our determent, I think our Western mind only values concrete, material, 'real' events, while dismissing other forms of truth. There is nothing wrong with conveying truth through stories or parables - Jesus did it all the time. None of his audience asked if the people He was talking about really lived - that was not the point of the story.

As far as scientists go, I think they are only concerned with observable phenomenon. So you are right, if there is no physical evidence for Biblical claims or BOM claims, there is no reason for them to believe the claims. One aspect of science that Christians and scientists seem to miss is that science is based on faith or the hypothesis. A claim is offered and then proven through observation and mathematics. Scientists have to work with faith all the time.

I am not sure why you are convinced that evolution is a lie. Science would have to present it as fact in order for someone to call it a lie. Evolution is a theory - it is an idea that is foundational to all branches of science. It is concerned only with how life forms and changes - the subject of God should never even enter into the conversation. Most evolutionary scientists never broach the subject of the origin of life - they are most interested in particular stages of life. Here's the bottom line, we cannot study science without the lens of evolution, unless we decide to learn it within Christian circles. Unfortunately, based on my own Christian education, when God is inserted into science, He often become the subject, rather than the foundation. My science classes most often turned into Sunday school lessons. The argument for keeping religion separate from science is that religious claims cannot be observed and this is a foundational requirement for inclusion within the field of science. Many Christians believe that exclusion mean anti - this is not the case at all. It would be like mathematicians coming to Church and demanding that all Christian claims should be expressed in a mathematical formula and if cannot be done it should be thrown out - we would all balk at such an intrusion of none sense. Science feels the same way about religion.

People who study ancient literature recognize many of the characteristics, themes, and even plots and characters from the stories in the Bible, from more ancient sources. The ancient writers of the scriptures used what they knew to convey God's truth. If they didn't, their audience would not be able to relate to the material - there is nothing wrong with this practice. God used His creation to communicate with His creation.

I believe scientists are experts on the mechanics of creation - I turn to them when I am interested in the details of life and the observable world. Of course, I believe their view of reality is limited and reductionistic, but it does not take away from their expertise in the area of observation and working theory. Truth is truth - God gave us brains to explore His creation - scientists do this better than any other group.

When it comes to spirituality, I turn to prayer and nature. I am fortunate to enjoy a larger view of the world than scientists who are entrenched in the observable world, and fundamentalists who force materialism and spirituality together in an unhappy marriage. Instead of only sticking with what is provable and observable in religion, fundamentalists often force the unprovable into the provable and call it faith!

 

[sdcougar]

Regarding the videos: here is an artcile the displays the evidence in text.

http://www.neirr.org/bof.htm

I have tried to read it but ... get so bored with it that i can not read any more then a few pages at a time. ...

You are in good company. Mark Twain wrote that it was "...rather stupid and tiresome to read" and called it "chloroform in print."

 

[Redeemed86]

Okay I think I am getting what you are saying - I am a bit dense today because I am sick, so bear with me. Are you saying that the errors in the Book of Mormon are self evident apart from science or sources outside the Bible?

I haven't thoroughly read the book of Mormon, so I'm not familiar with what's in it. I do know God's truth in the bible though. The way you compared a heretical book with the bible, as if they deserve to be lumped in together, didn't sit well with me.

As far as scientists go, I think they are only concerned with observable phenomenon. So you are right, if there is no physical evidence for Biblical claims or BOM claims, there is no reason for them to believe the claims. One aspect of science that Christians and scientists seem to miss is that science is based on faith or the hypothesis. A claim is offered and then proven through observation and mathematics. Scientists have to work with faith all the time.

I am fine with science in general. It's evolutionary science that I reject. I don't need it on this side of the bible.

I am not sure why you are convinced that evolution is a lie. Science would have to present it as fact in order for someone to call it a lie. Evolution is a theory - it is an idea that is foundational to all branches of science. It is concerned only with how life forms and changes - the subject of God should never even enter into the conversation. Most evolutionary scientists never broach the subject of the origin of life - they are most interested in particular stages of life. Here's the bottom line, we cannot study science without the lens of evolution, unless we decide to learn it within Christian circles. Unfortunately, based on my own Christian education, when God is inserted into science, He often become the subject, rather than the foundation. My science classes most often turned into Sunday school lessons. The argument for keeping religion separate from science is that religious claims cannot be observed and this is a foundational requirement for inclusion within the field of science. Many Christians believe that exclusion mean anti - this is not the case at all. It would be like mathematicians coming to Church and demanding that all Christian claims should be expressed in a mathematical formula and if cannot be done it should be thrown out - we would all balk at such an intrusion of none sense. Science feels the same way about religion.

Because I don't believe in relative truth anymore. When I came into truth (Christianity), I accepted God's word as the absolute and final truth. What you've said above would mean that God's word can't be called truth, because it can't be scientifically proven either. I feel that is the view from spiritually blind eyes, leaning on evolutionary science as a foundation, instead of the bible. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are coming off as someone who is able to step out of Christianity and walk by a fact-based belief temporarily. There's no use in considering the "maybe's" or "possibly's" that theories provide, once I have found the final truth.

People who study ancient literature recognize many of the characteristics, themes, and even plots and characters from the stories in the Bible, from more ancient sources. The ancient writers of the scriptures used what they knew to convey God's truth. If they didn't, their audience would not be able to relate to the material - there is nothing wrong with this practice. God used His creation to communicate with His creation.

The difference is that God's word is not a play or script, but the actual word of God. It's not "the word of God through man's knowledge". I don't believe God's intent was to tickle our ears with relatable content, but to define himself and his eternal plan for us.

I believe scientists are experts on the mechanics of creation - I turn to them when I am interested in the details of life and the observable world. Of course, I believe their view of reality is limited and reductionistic, but it does not take away from their expertise in the area of observation and working theory. Truth is truth - God gave us brains to explore His creation - scientists do this better than any other group.

I agree, but not to define it without him. Which is what evolution attempts to do.

When it comes to spirituality, I turn to prayer and nature. I am fortunate to enjoy a larger view of the world than scientists who are entrenched in the observable world, and fundamentalists who force materialism and spirituality together in an unhappy marriage. Instead of only sticking with what is provable and observable in religion, fundamentalists often force the unprovable into the provable and call it faith!

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

 

[aspen]

[/color]

I haven't thoroughly read the book of Mormon, so I'm not familiar with what's in it. I do know God's truth in the bible though. The way you compared a heretical book with the bible, as if they deserve to be lumped in together, didn't sit well with me.

I am not comparing it. I am asking for the criteria people use to determine that the BOM is false. In my example, I do speak from the point of view of scientists - the majority believe the BOM and the Bible are comparable, but I do not believe they are.

I am fine with science in general. It's evolutionary science that I reject. I don't need it on this side of the bible.

I think it has merit. I am certainly not afraid to consider it.

Because I don't believe in relative truth anymore. When I came into truth (Christianity), I accepted God's word as the absolute and final truth. What you've said above would mean that God's word can't be called truth, because it can't be scientifically proven either. I feel that is the view from spiritually blind eyes, leaning on evolutionary science as a foundation, instead of the bible. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are coming off as someone who is able to step out of Christianity and walk by a fact-based belief temporarily. There's no use in considering the "maybe's" or "possibly's" that theories provide, once I have found the final truth.

I think an all or nothing approach to the Bible is setting up the Bible and faith to fail. The Bible is inspired and an important part of our sanctification, but it is not a science book or a math book or a medical book - there are other versions of the same truth out there. Truth is absolute but it doesn't mean we have an absolute understanding of it. The gospel writers even say that Jesus's words extend past the written words of scripture. There is also references in the NT that no one has an excuse to claim that God does not exist because His fingerprint is found in nature. I do not believe hunkering down in the truth of the Bible and shielding ourselves from the rest of God's truth is healthy. Finally, if God wanted us to have a crystal clear understanding of His nature and our nature, He would have written it himself, not relied on humans to convey it. The fact is, we have a special role in the redemption of our nature - God wants us to learn from this terrible situation we put ourselves into.

The difference is that God's word is not a play or script, but the actual word of God. It's not "the word of God through man's knowledge". I don't believe God's intent was to tickle our ears with relatable content, but to define himself and his eternal plan for us.

Why does using humans and everything that comes along with us to communicate His word mean that He must be doing it to tickle our ears? Why can't it mean that He decided to speak human in order for us to understand His nature, plan, and our nature and redemption?

I agree, but not to define it without him. Which is what evolution attempts to do.

If you were talking about the Big Bang, I would agree with you completely - science has no business trying to answer the question of the origin of the universe because it is not observable. Evolution is a different story - it is science. Taking evolution out of science would be like taking God out of Christianity.

Evolution is just like the study of history. Neither involves God - I think some Christians try to challenge evolution because it do not match up with the Creation story. Personally, not that it matters, I believe God created us in a similar manner to the evolutionary model - maybe not exactly, but closer to evolution than the creation story. I may change my mind at some point, but for now it works for me. I am thankful that God allows us to consider ideas without punishing us.

The verse in Hebrews that you offered is a good one - the word 'Now' is important. Faith starts out as the willingness to suspend our disbelief long enough to experience something new. After we experience the truth of God, faith is ratified and confirmed - actually it is completely blown out of the water by the reality of God. The experience of God is utterly mind blowing joy - after experiencing God, I can see why the OT Israelites were afraid to see God because they would died - I never knew it would be from too much joy, love, glory.

 

[NicholasMarks]

One indisputable fact of life is that if something useful is brought alive, as, in this case...The Holy Bible...which holds many peoples fascination and beliefs, it isn't long before iniquity says to itself..."I want a piece of the action" and a new version, based on the original, is born. It can never be the same as the original because Jesus just gives, and gives again...taking nothing and instructs his diciples to do likewise. All the imitations have a cost. Not just financial cost but emotional cost too.

Upbuilding our emotions via his spiritual instructions is where Jesus Christ excels. We all need a strong, upright, inner being to guide us and Jesus Christ's accurate teaching shows us how to do it.