Book of Mormon

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hey you guys. I wanted to post this video of an incredible talk by Jeffrey R. Holland. He is an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe that apostles are special witnesses of Jesus Christ, just as the apostles in the New Testament. In this talk, Elder Holland bears an incredibly powerful testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. It's on youtube in two parts: Part One. Part Two.

I'd love to hear how you feel after watching it if any one wants to share.

 

[jabberwockybruno]

I've read the Book of Mormon, and I don't buy it.

There are many parts I simply do not think are true, because they don't correlate with secular history. Some examples:

1. There is absolutely no DNA or anthropological evidence that native Americans are descendants from the Jewish race. Rather, all evidence suggests Mongoloid/Asian ancestory.

2. The BOM describes many great cities in the Americas, and describes civilizations that have bronze shields, helmets, and swords, as well as a coin currency system. It also describes all of these things, as well as animals such elephants and horses, being in existence thousands of years ago. There is no archeological evidence for any of this.

If a book makes such claims of these supposed civilizations, I would expect archeologists to find some evidence. I would also expect DNA analysis to verify its claims of the Native Americans' ancestry. Since the evidence is either lacking or contradictory, I cannot believe that the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is true.

I have other things to say, but does anybody care to know?

 

[Apex]

I've read the Book of Mormon, and I don't buy it.

There are many parts I simply do not think are true, because they don't correlate with secular history. Some examples:

1. There is absolutely no DNA or anthropological evidence that native Americans are descendants from the Jewish race. Rather, all evidence suggests Mongoloid/Asian ancestory.

2. The BOM describes many great cities in the Americas, and describes civilizations that have bronze shields, helmets, and swords, as well as a coin currency system. It also describes all of these things, as well as animals such elephants and horses, being in existence thousands of years ago. There is no archeological evidence for any of this.

If a book makes such claims of these supposed civilizations, I would expect archeologists to find some evidence. I would also expect DNA analysis to verify its claims of the Native Americans' ancestry. Since the evidence is either lacking or contradictory, I cannot believe that the ENTIRE Book of Mormon is true.

I have other things to say, but does anybody care to know?

Have you looked at any of the responses to these points given by LDS scholars and apologists? I am not implying that you would instantly see the "truth" if you did, but it is generally a good idea to look at all sides first.

 

[jabberwockybruno]

So what I got from the video you linked is: It must be true because Joseph Smith and his brother died for it. Why would they so strongly defend an untrue book? It's validity is also evidenced by the positive impact it has had on so many lives.

These are valid points. I'm still unconvinced of its historicity. I'm looking for independent verification from secular sources. If you give me more links to videos or articles, I'll watch/read them.

Do you know anyplace where I can get transcripts of Joseph's Smith's sermons? I figure there's no better way to learn of a religion than directly from its founder.

 

[Akira]

i feel rather guilty for first becoming confused by the BOM because of an episode of South Park. i'm not going to lie, i know very little other than the contents of that episode. I will however try and watch these two clips with an open, yet as always suspicious, mind.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

i feel rather guilty for first becoming confused by the BOM because of an episode of South Park. i'm not going to lie, i know very little other than the contents of that episode. I will however try and watch these two clips with an open, yet as always suspicious, mind.

Yes you/we should...

Also...let's be very respectful of their space here on RF. This was placed in the "Christianity" section so we want to be more of and observer than a commenter...

 

[Clear]

I think the first time I even knew a Mormon, I was in high school. (I mixed up the LDS with the Amish and was surprised my student body president was LDS...). Later, in college a Lutheran scholar handed me a Book of Mormon, told me “You really have to read this”. They explained they had a spiritual confirmation the book was true and were converting. If that person had not been so spectacular, I would have simply concluded delusion. I admit that I only read bits, still I felt it was as profound a testimony of Jesus as I’d ever been exposed to.

Now, that I’m older and looking back the perspectives have changed a lot. I have more background in history than ever, more ability to think critically (and perhaps more cynical of claims) than ever. I understand enough regarding DNA to understand the competing data (those who do believe in the LDS claim parade their data, and those who do not believe in the claim parade their equally impressive data sets - both data sets are impressive, but inclusive to me). Individuals debate as to what is meant literally and what is meant symbolically and allegorically, etc. Now that I’m older, I believe many, many of these disagreements have to do with the data sets individuals are exposed to.

For example, Dirty Penguin points out a set of data where horses did not exist on the American Continent, whereas my historical exposure confirmed horses long before spaniards arrived. Horses in my data set were sold from Sante Fe and sent south. Though our data sets are different and incongruent. Neither he nor I can easily change our minds without further data. This, we do not have. At least not in any arguments I’ve seen.

The data sets between the LDS and non LDS differ in many ways that cause similar difficulties. For example, it’s been claimed that the indians have no parallel belief remnants in their religion with christianity. My neighbor is a Navaho indian who spoken specifically of these parallels others claim do not exist. I do not think either side is attempting to outright lie, but they are simply making the best decision they can on limited information. Perhaps my Navaho neighbor doesn’t really know his own religious background or perhaps the other claimant is incorrect. As an observer to the two claims, I am stuck in the position of simply admitting to myself that I cannot come to any honest conclusion. OR, I can simply take the position that agrees with my prior bias. Often the truth that I find, is somewhere in between the claims.

For example, it was claimed in another thread on the Book of Mormon, that Smith plagiarized “word for word” directly from the King James. The claim was made with wonderful and impressive examples. The LDS then countered with denials with some examples. And I am still left in the same position as before. Maybe.... However, I took some time to actually LOOK at some of the verses and compare the Book of Mormon’s Isaiah “word for word” with the King James Version and find that something else entirely is going on (at least in my opinion). The LDS are perfectly correct (even if they didn’t know it), the verses are not lifted “word for word” from the King James. At least half of the verses I read are different in the Book of Mormon. There are additions, subtractions and changes (the typical plus, minus and change errors that one see’s between most New or Old Testament Manuscripts...)

This is only seen when one actually is diligent enough to LOOK "word for word" (how many will do that....?). However, the critics are partly correct that there are sections taken from the King James also (including italics). If Smith felt that the KJV WAS as good as his source material (whatever it was), then this is acceptable for a translator to do. (up to 30% of New Testament references are from other books...) However, If what is to be translated is different, then this was bad form and poor stuff (My wife is a translator). However, it gets much more complicated than this. The WORDS that are added and subtracted ARE different in important ways. (I’ve heard the LDS discussion on “the ships of tarshish” translation and it’s interesting) However, Smith seems to follow other translations and is consistent in some places with the syriac version and in other places with the codex alexandricus. My point is that I am left with a personal data set that shows it is NOT a “word for word” lifting; yet it is consistent with other versions that I have no reason (yet) to believe he had access to, or if he DID have access to the syriac, could he have made a couple of hundred changes in the short production time to create the book? Also, the specific Chapters Smith placed in the Book of Mormon have profound import to the books purposes (rather than other chapters in Isaiah...).

I also admit that the Book of Mormon is much more credible for me after having read Smith’s “Pearl of Great Price”, which contains so many parallels with so many histories that I’ve been exposed to that I still am unable to conceive of how someone could have created THAT testimony of Jesus. I’ve never seen anything like that done before. Ever. Given THAT text as a context, it was still surprising to find even the subtle gospel currents woven into the Book of Mormon. I do not believe that even the Mormons themselves are aware of the doctrines paralleling the parable of the Sower and the Seed (of Matt 13) in the Book of Mormon in nephi's "tree of life dream". The same four groups are involved. (I have to wonder if the "four trees" and "four countries" of the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the same principles as well).

I’ve also considered the motives of Smith. Suppose he was completely nefarious. I cannot imagine the genius that could create such a book was also a complete imbecile when it came to benefitting from his scheme. I’ve practiced medicine for more than 27 years and have never seen, nor heard of, nor experienced that combination. Smith brings incredible persecution upon his own head and never makes a dime nor does he seem to be able to create a peaceful and happy life full of prosperity as many individuals who’ve sold religion have done. Even trying to imagine a schemer who makes up hundreds of salvific doctrines (i.e. those doctrines that directly impact our salvation), yet the “made up” doctrines then just happen to be salvific doctrines that are VERY unorthodox to modern christianity, yet he accidentally “imagines up” or chooses those that are indeed the ancient Christian doctrines of salvation are not explainable by the data set I now have. How does a schemer and plotter wanting to “do wrong” (perhaps obtain fame and money) then accidentally “do right”? (and provide authentic teachings; understanding; and testimonies of God) How does this schemer teach individuals to seek direct revelation from God and then to actually obtain revelation for themselves as the ancient Christians did? There are too many profound questions that I (personally), cannot answer by any of the theories of the critics (that I’ve seen so far).

the claims of "Prophetic Hypocrisy" don't really help at all. OFTEN the ancient prophets were accused of hypocritical behaviors. For example : Critics may point out that Moses became a "murderer" before he was a prophet. In contrast, does it matter if Smith prospected? I don't know. Moses is taken to task by his Brother and Sister for marrying Tharbis (the ethiopian woman of numbers chapt 12) when it had been prohibited by HIM to marry outside of Israel. Moses brings back the ten commandments that prohibit making a graven image, yet he then makes one (as a serpent upon a pole) and instructs the image to be attended to. However, such things cannot make proper sense without further Data. However, the data may not be available to Moses' Critics (which is WHY they are critics) and the data may be known by those who believe Moses was a prophet. (The underlying data in these example IS certainly available and justify Moses in each account - but only to some individuals who look at the underlying historical data as to why such things happened). The point is, the critics AND the believers in Moses maintain opposing beliefs BECAUSE they have differing sets of data (information). I believe the same applies to Smith and to almost all religious arguments.

I hope this makes sense BOTH to the LDS and the critics. I hope I did NOT seem argumentative, but why the theories (on both sides of the argument) are not helpful if they are looked at in a “drive by fashion”. I do think the LDS are correct, that revelation from God is the strongest reason to believe in the existence of God.


Clear

I apologize if this seems somewhat rambling, but it’s 01:50 am and I’m really quite tired. I'll also try to get to the clips when I have some time....

 

[Green Kepi]

Gal 1:6 - I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Joseph Smith said an angel named Moroni taught him something different. Mohammad claimed to have received visions from God by the angel Gabriel. Enough said...I don't need anything else to dismiss their claims as false!!!!
​

 

[Watchmen]

Gal 1:6 - I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!​

Joseph Smith said an angel named Moroni taught him something different. Mohammad claimed to have received visions from God by the angel Gabriel. Enough said...I don't need anything else to dismiss their claims as false!!!!​

This is not a debate forum, but it is necessary to tell you that Gal. 1:8 includes the provision "other than the one we preached to you." If you did some research and praying, you'd discover what the LDS teach is the same gospel preached before.

 

[Green Kepi]

This is not a debate forum, but it is necessary to tell you that Gal. 1:8 includes the provision "other than the one we preached to you." If you did some research and praying, you'd discover what the LDS teach is the same gospel preached before.

I'm not debating and don't want too...however, I've done the research and discovered that it isn't the same gospel...if it's the same gospel...then we don't need another 'book' 1000 of years later. Anyway...I won't respond again...don't want to be accused of "debating"!

 

[Clear]

Watchmen

The phenomenon of religious argument seems to me to be so very dependent upon prior bias, whim and circumstance. For example, Green Kepi and I come to completely opposite conclusions based on the same principle (i.e. "the ancient gospel") but upon different biases and data sets (which themselves change as we age). Because of this, we interpret and apply the exact same scripture (Galatians) very differently. I have to wonder if it isn’t our differing personal bias' which creates our differing personal reaction to almost all doctrines we’re exposed to and to some extent creates the justifications we all feel in what we believe.

For example, Kepi seems disinterested because the LDS are not in tune with his concept of the ancient Christian salvific doctrines whereas I am becoming extraordinarily interested because I think the salvific doctrines of the LDS are increasingly consistent with my personal concept of the ancient Christian salvific doctrines.

As a specific example that is, hopefully not controversial (at least among historians), am I both amazed and pleased that the LDS are restoring the Christian doctrine of Pre-existence of the spirits of men. This is because the data set I’ve been exposed to indicates it was the authentic ancient Christian Doctrine. However, when I was young, I was exposed to a different data set and would have (and probably did...) dismissed this specific doctrine because it was inconsistent with my early level of knowledge and bias. Whereas Kepi doesn’t need “anything else” to dismiss a claim, the more I “research it” as you suggested, the more I am impressed and require much more data before I could possibly dismiss it.

Both Kepi and I have created, over our life times, certain biases which are probably still quite riddled with many incorrect assumptions (we just don’t know what they are...), yet these opposing biases may represent our very best guesses as to what the early SALVIFIC doctrines actually looked like. If he and I can come to entirely different conclusions (and I make the assumption that both he and I are doing the best we can with the data we have), then it makes sense that all individuals are subject to the similar limitations and make a great many incorrect assumptions. And, importantly, we simply don’t know where we are incorrect.

If, given my personal bias, Paul’s warning of apostasy applied to the Galatians in their day and age meant that early Christians were already deserting the original Gospel to a counterfeit Christianity, and I have in my day and age, inherited the counterfeit christianity, how will I ever discover my error (since the counterfeits use the same scriptures to support their version of the Christians gospel as other Christians use) unless I am able to look critically at what I believe? (Or at least admit to myself that I could be wrong...) I have wondered what would happen if individuals were to approach religion from the assumption that there are errors in their own beliefs and simply try to find out what THOSE errors were, rather than to desperately create psychological and logistical support for the current bias we all have.

Kepi is drawing away and I am drawing closer to the LDS. Perhaps it is because I am exposed to differing early Judao-Christian texts and thus expect personal revelation to continue and Kepi has been exposed to another type of data set with it’s different conclusions. It cannot be simply “biblical exposure alone” since I cannot assume that his Old and New Testament is greatly different than mine. Our differing conclusions have to rest in other biases and data sets between he and I.





Davy Crocket2003;

I have looked at the video reference more than once. It is one of the most powerful testimonies I’ve heard. I can’t avoid placing his speech into the historical paradigm I have. I do not know how to be more objective than I have been in considering what Holland’s talk could mean. Whereas Kepi finds himself repelled, I find myself drawn to the rare power and spirit of such Testimonies regardless of who gives them.

I’ve tried to look at what the ancient’s said they believed regarding God’s plan for the world and as I place the LDS model into what I think is the ancient model, I cannot avoid the observation that the LDS salvific doctrines fit too well for me to simply dismiss. I can’t. (I could have when I was young and had a different, a different... a smaller set of data)

For example, in Enoch’s vision Enoch discussed the Heavenly Curtain surrounding the throne of God upon which all human history is shown.., it shows “each generation and it’s potentiates,”. Enoch says “I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts; Noah and the generation of the flood, their deeds and their thoughts;....Abraham and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts......the teachers of the children in Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; the teachers of the children of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts;” He seems to have seen the world history spread out before him unto the last days.

Enoch adds that he saw

“...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...And I saw: the Messiah the son of Joseph and his generation, and all that they will do to the gentiles..... (3 enoc 45)

One can deny the ancient doctrine that there would be “prophets” among the gentiles, but since 3 Enoch was redacted by ancient Christians themselves, then one can’t deny that the Christian Redactors themselves believed in this very doctrine they wrote down, that is, that there would be prophets among the Gentiles. This ancient doctrine of continuing revelation from God creates expectations and a set of eyes willing to look for and look at any claim that might fit the early doctrine of continuing revelation.

When I was young, I grew up with the bias that God gave the gospel ONLY to Israel, and NO other group in the world had it. I believed this despite it's inherent unfairness. As I research more and more of the ancient teachings, I realize the ancient concepts that I am becoming familiar with, taught ongoing revelation among various nations (including the gentiles). I cannot help but envision individuals such as a Joseph Smith, or a Mr. Holland as the type who would fit that predicted Mold of a Gentile Prophet. The ancient teaching that revelation was to continue (even among the non-prophet but faithful individual christian "saint") is a powerful principle that sets authentic Christianity apart from many other religions who may pray but do not expect an answer. Not really.



Clear
eidrsiis

 

[Watchmen]

I'm not debating and don't want too...however, I've done the research and discovered that it isn't the same gospel...if it's the same gospel...then we don't need another 'book' 1000 of years later. Anyway...I won't respond again...don't want to be accused of "debating"!

Well, I'm not debating either - but the scripture you quoted didn't say anything about not another book - it said not another gospel, which it isn't.

 

[jabberwockybruno]

This is not a debate forum, but it is necessary to tell you that Gal. 1:8 includes the provision "other than the one we preached to you." If you did some research and praying, you'd discover what the LDS teach is the same gospel preached before.

It is not the same gospel. Joseph Smith that a man can become a God (that's with a capital "g") just like Jesus is.

LDS teaches a person has a chance to be saved after death, hence the practice of baptizing the dead into the church.

Bringham Young taught that Jesus' shed blood is not sufficient to forgive every sin, hence some people need to literally bleed their own blood to be forgiven.

There exist multiple gods, according to LDS. I.E. Jesus is one with God the Father in that they are "one" in thought and mission, however they are two separate beings

None of these four doctrines are found anywhere in the Bible. The New Testament is very clear. Jesus Christ is God THE ONE AND ONLY, and he is one with the Father because God the Father is God and there is only one God. You only get one shot to get into heaven and nobody can do it for you posthumously. Jesus' blood is sufficient to take care of ALL sins no matter what.

Now with that being said, the Book of Mormon doesn't cover all these topics. It's mostly a supposed history of the ancient people of America, and Jesus is mentioned only briefly when he comes to the Americas after his ascension from Israel.
I think the whole book is a joke and will continue to think so until I see some evidence of any sort that backs up the stories in the Book of Mormon. Absolutely nothing has been found that give credibility to any of the book's historical claims.

I'm wondering what Green Kepi thought when he finished reading it?

 

[Watchmen]

It is not the same gospel. Joseph Smith that a man can become a God (that's with a capital "g") just like Jesus is.

LDS teaches a person has a chance to be saved after death, hence the practice of baptizing the dead into the church.

Bringham Young taught that Jesus' shed blood is not sufficient to forgive every sin, hence some people need to literally bleed their own blood to be forgiven.

There exist multiple gods, according to LDS. I.E. Jesus is one with God the Father in that they are "one" in thought and mission, however they are two separate beings

None of these four doctrines are found anywhere in the Bible. The New Testament is very clear. Jesus Christ is God THE ONE AND ONLY, and he is one with the Father because God the Father is God and there is only one God. You only get one shot to get into heaven and nobody can do it for you posthumously. Jesus' blood is sufficient to take care of ALL sins no matter what.

Now with that being said, the Book of Mormon doesn't cover all these topics. It's mostly a supposed history of the ancient people of America, and Jesus is mentioned only briefly when he comes to the Americas after his ascension from Israel.
I think the whole book is a joke and will continue to think so until I see some evidence of any sort that backs up the stories in the Book of Mormon. Absolutely nothing has been found that give credibility to any of the book's historical claims.

I'm wondering what Green Kepi thought when he finished reading it?

Are you debating? Either way, it doesn't matter because you're wrong. I won't get into it because it's not a debate, but I'll invite you to edit your post and start your own thread.

 

[jabberwockybruno]

I'm not debating and don't want too...however, I've done the research and discovered that it isn't the same gospel...if it's the same gospel...then we don't need another 'book' 1000 of years later. Anyway...I won't respond again...don't want to be accused of "debating"!

Oh sad, my reply didn't stick.

Anyway, to Green Kepi I ask: What did you think of the book after you read it?

Cmon now, saying what you think of the book is what this whole thread is about!

 

[jabberwockybruno]

Are you debating? Either way, it doesn't matter because you're wrong. I won't get into it because it's not a debate, but I'll invite you to edit your post and start your own thread.

The four topics I listed were a sidetrack comment to the Gallations reference. To close that tangent, since you say I'm wrong, then please tell me what the official LDS doctrine is on being able to become a God (if possible), baptism after death, Jesus' atonement for sins, and plurality (or singularity) of Gods.

I just wanted to say that I don't believe the Book of Mormon because of lack of any historical evidence. I have no doubt that it is inspiring and changes lives for the better, but a book does not have to be non-fiction to do that.

And I was also wondering what Green Kepi thought of the Book of Mormon after he read it.

 

[Watchmen]

The four topics I listed were a sidetrack comment to the Gallations reference. To close that tangent, since you say I'm wrong, then please tell me what the official LDS doctrine is on being able to become a God (if possible), baptism after death, Jesus' atonement for sins, and plurality (or singularity) of Gods.

I can't do that because it's not a debate forum. That's why I invited you to start another thread.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Watchmen, if Jaberwocky is accurate in a claim that the LDS believe that God is not a single divine being but that men are to become more like God, it provides yet another unintended example of what I meant that as I discover more about the LDS, I am more excited about their claim to possess ancient doctrines.

For example the ancient usage of the terms God’s and God-like is woven throughout so much of the early Jewish and Christian literature. The ancient concept that the spirits of men are sent to earth to become a morally mature beings and to grow to be more like God (i.e. Godlike) through imitation and experience and then return to heaven in an improved state to ultimately become “Godlike” saturates the early literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. It mirrors the Apostolic Fathers teaching that we are “imitators” of God in this life; we are “students” sent to learn moral principles that will enable us to live a joyful and harmonious social life forever in a “heaven”.

Even the concept of man’s relationship to God as a “child” of God is so reminiscent of the ancient concept as God in his ancient appellation of “the Perfect Man” repeated so often in such popular texts as the Gospel of Phillip and the secret book of John.

The Muslims and many other non-christians have complained about modern Christianities attempts to sit on a theological fence (i.e. for pretending to be a "monotheistic polytheism" or a "polytheistic monotheism") in the millennia-long debate as to the nature of the “three is really one” “trinity” creed. If the LDS have returned to the clear and ancient teaching, then good for them.


It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called “Gods&#8221 was essentially monotheism for most of it’s history since they has a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called “gods”. He directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important since it seems to be the distinction that the LDS make (if I am correct - Please, watchmen, correct me if I am in error). This concept underlie the ancient Jews and Christians texts that speak so often about “Gods” and the “Godlike” and still remain essentially monotheistic in their context.

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God :

“Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am.” And he said, “You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4

This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples :

“You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

“You have humbled the gods from the foundation” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432

“He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael…to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496 )

It speaks of men as the “righteous ones among the gods of…in the holy habitation.” (THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496)

It’s late, (01:12 am...) I’ll continue the example tomorrow IF it’s not seen as a debate. I don’t want to debate, merely to show that in view of the historical doctrines and their parallels with the LDS, I am as excited as I am amazed.

I’m also so very impressed about the LDS return to the ancient doctrine that the dead are alive and have a chance to receive the Gospel blessings. I was taught growing up that there was NO chance for salvation of those who died without hearing of Jesus. The ancient aborigine or infant who died without “ accepting jesus” was simply sent to a hell where they were tortured forever in flames despite their not having an adequate chance to have received Jesus. This unfair doctrine created another millennia-long debate between indignant philosophers and uncomfortable Christians as to how a God could punish a person for not accepting christ despite not having been given sufficient chance. Even the early Christian Actus Fiction speaks of changing conditions among the dead being given the blessings of the Gospel.

I have to stop. Please let me know if this seems to be argumentative or debating. I do not want to debate per se. I do think the modern Christians retain the right to claim that the ancient Christians did not have the correct concepts of Christianity, but still, these principles are in their literature and represent their ancient beliefs (rather than a modern Christian’s “interpretation” of their beliefs...).

I have to stop.

Clear
eisifuuf

POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Green Kepi]

Oh sad, my reply didn't stick.

Anyway, to Green Kepi I ask: What did you think of the book after you read it?

Cmon now, saying what you think of the book is what this whole thread is about!

This is only to answer you jabberwockybruno…not to throw some of my reasoning’s out for debate.



You asked what I thought after I read it. For years, I have studied it, always invite their “elders” into my home for discussions, and I’ve even worked at BYU (asked a bunch of questions back then).


But here are my thoughts and I’ll just leave them as that…oh, by the way…for all the Mormons who would and do disagree with me…let me say this: I do admire your zeal, spirit and motivation to live and work for God. Most of the time you all put my mission and work for the Lord to shame! May God continue to bless you.


There have been at least 3,913 changes made in the Book of Mormon from the time it was first published in 1830. However, it is very interesting to be told that the Mormon Historian Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that there is no truth in the statement that there have been thousands of changes in the Book of Mormon. He is reported as saying this at a conference in 1961.


Even in the Mormon Article of Faith #8 it states: "We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

Then why add the phrase, "as far as it is translated correctly" to describe the Bible and not after the book of Mormon when in fact there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible?


In 1981 the LDS Church published a new edition of the Book of Mormon, making a number of additional changes in the text. Okay…I’ll stop and then say…that I love these type of Forums where people critically think and not just throw out a bunch of opinions and feelings and get mad! Thanks!

 

[Green Kepi]

I’m also so very impressed about the LDS return to the ancient doctrine that the dead are alive and have a chance to receive the Gospel blessings. I was taught growing up that there was NO chance for salvation of those who died without hearing of Jesus. The ancient aborigine or infant who died without “ accepting jesus” was simply sent to a hell where they were tortured forever in flames despite their not having an adequate chance to have received Jesus. This unfair doctrine created another millennia-long debate between indignant philosophers and uncomfortable Christians as to how a God could punish a person for not accepting christ despite not having been given sufficient chance. Even the early Christian Actus Fiction speaks of changing conditions among the dead being given the blessings of the Gospel.

Clear...the Bible's Scriptures do not teach this...men and women claiming to have a handle on the truth teach this...the Bible is clear in its teachings (see Romans 2:14-16). Those that did not have the Law formed their own law. God has put in all men an inner sense of right and wrong. These Gentile which Roman's is talking about will be judged by the own conscience (laws) i.e. Did they break their own laws?

This type of salvation is what the whole Book of Jonah is about. The good law biding people of Nineveh were not baptized or had they heard of Jesus; however, the Blood of Christ saved them...just as it does today.

There is apparently a sense in which God overlooks certain practices and/or ignorance until people have a chance to come into contact with the Gospel. True...there is salvation through no one but Jesus (Acts 4:12) however, this does not mean that everyone must know about Jesus before Jesus can save them.

I can't see how anyone can believe that our loving Lord would let billions be thrown into the Lake of Fire without (those that never heard the Gospel preached) offering them so much as a possibility of finding forgiveness...I can see God with tears in His eyes saying, "How could you think that I could be so heartless?"