What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[Autodidact]

Faith (faithfulness) - "O Lord, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name; for thou hast done wonderful things; thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth" (Isaiah 25:1). "I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Ephesians 3:16-17).

Faith and trust go hand in hand.

Uh huh. Now could you answer my question? Thanks.

 

[Apex]

Contradictions in Mormonism

"Contradictions" in the Book of Mormon and J. Smith's teachings.

Ok, I did not read the whole article as this was the very first thing I came across,

Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bones?

• D&C 130:22 says yes: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's; the Son also...". BUT:
  
• D&C 38:1-7 says that Jesus is invisible: "I am in your midst and ye cannot see me."

I wonder if they know the difference between passages that are supposed to be taken literally and those that are not?

 

[Renji]

Ok, I did not read the whole article as this was the very first thing I came across,

I wonder if they know the difference between passages that are supposed to be taken literally and those that are not?

That gives me headache actually. I posted it here, hoping to get the sides LDS like you about it.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok, I did not read the whole article as this was the very first thing I came across,

I wonder if they know the difference between passages that are supposed to be taken literally and those that are not?

No, how do you tell?

For example
And it came to pass that two hundred years had passed away; and the second generation had all passed away save it were a few. 23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ.
24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.
25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.
27 And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.
28 And this church did multiply exceedingly because of iniquity, and because of the power of Satan who did get hold upon their hearts.
29 And again, there was another church which denied the Christ; and they did persecute the true church of Christ, because of their humility and their belief in Christ; and they did despise them because of the many miracles which were wrought among them.


How do we tell if this is supposed to be factual or real?


(And why doesn't it ever bother Mormons how comically poorly written it is?)

 

[Clear]

Katzpur Madhatter :

I do believe that :

1) the early Christians did view God as living in a specific place;
2) the ancient Christians did believe that spirits of men were present there, and that
3) they did teach that The Father (i.e. The Lord God) developed a plan as to what he would do with the spirits of men; and that
4) the result of this great plan for men resulted in the creation of the earth and in mortality.

I also believe that the evolving christianities have, mostly abandoned these beliefs and adopted other doctrines (many of which have caused a great deal of grief for christianities)

Regarding pre-existence.

Philosophers have long complained about the MODERN Christian doctrines of punishing men despite pre-destining them to punishment (or reward); even the modern Christian theory that teaches God the Father creates spirits from nothing (and thereby determines the moral characteristics of the man) and the resulting unfairness of either rewarding or punishing men for the very characteristics God placed within him.

ANCIENT Christianity avoided this enigma by it’s doctrine that spirits of men existed prior to creation and these spirits developed independent characteristics which distinguishes them in this life.

Am I correct that the LDS ALSO teach the ANCIENT doctrine that spirits of men not only existed prior to this life, but developed many moral characteristics on their own?


Clear
einefutwnn

 

[LittleNipper]

Uh huh. Now could you answer my question? Thanks.

I did. You don't see it.

 

[madhatter85]

Katzpur Madhatter :

I do believe that :

1) the early Christians did view God as living in a specific place;
2) the ancient Christians did believe that spirits of men were present there, and that
3) they did teach that The Father (i.e. The Lord God) developed a plan as to what he would do with the spirits of men; and that
4) the result of this great plan for men resulted in the creation of the earth and in mortality.

I also believe that the evolving christianities have, mostly abandoned these beliefs and adopted other doctrines (many of which have caused a great deal of grief for christianities)

Regarding pre-existence.

Philosophers have long complained about the MODERN Christian doctrines of punishing men despite pre-destining them to punishment (or reward); even the modern Christian theory that teaches God the Father creates spirits from nothing (and thereby determines the moral characteristics of the man) and the resulting unfairness of either rewarding or punishing men for the very characteristics God placed within him.

ANCIENT Christianity avoided this enigma by it’s doctrine that spirits of men existed prior to creation and these spirits developed independent characteristics which distinguishes them in this life.

Am I correct that the LDS ALSO teach the ANCIENT doctrine that spirits of men not only existed prior to this life, but developed many moral characteristics on their own?


Clear
einefutwnn

Definitely, the idea that we did not exist before this world conflicts heavily with the idea of free agency or free will.

It is one of our most precious beliefs is that we desired to become like our Heavenly Father, to come to this earth for the purpose of gaining a physical body and learning to control (not necessarily suppress) our thoughts, desires, appetites, and lusts. That all things must be done in moderation and within the bounds the Lord has set. The reason for these boundaries? is to help us come to know how Heavenly Father conducts himself and how he loves his children. Heavenly Father is perfected and we too have the opportunity to be perfected through the savior Jesus Christ if we will do what he asks of us in this life. what does he ask? Love the Lord Thy God, Keep the Commandments, and forgive everyone their trespasses so that we may also be forgiven. It takes self-mastery, of which i spoke previously, which is truly a lifelong process. God did not force us to come here, we wanted to because we knew what the reward would be if we triumphed.

 

[Sententia]

Mark Twain famously referred to the Book of Mormon as Chloroform in Print.

If not odd, its quite funny. (Esp. if you consider one of its Books is Actually named Ether.)

 

[madhatter85]

Mark Twain famously referred to the Book of Mormon as Chloroform in Print.

If not odd, its quite funny. (Esp. if you consider one of its Books is Actually named Ether.)

That kinda made me chuckle.

 

[Autodidact]

I did. You don't see it.

I sure don't.
My question: Now I'm confused. I thought you said it was about the fruits. Now you're saying it's who they trust? What if they place their trust and faith in Jesus, but don't show those fruits? What if they show those fruits, but don't believe in Jesus?
Your answer: Faith and trust go hand in hand.

Say what?
Let's try again. If a person demonstrates all the traits you listed as "fruits," but does not place their trust and faith in Jesus, are they a True Believer?
If a person places their faith and trust in Jesus, but does not demonstrate all of these traits, are they a True Believer?

To make it clear, you might want to try a yes or no. Or, of course, I don't know is always fine.

 

[Watchmen]

For the record, it's not plagiarism when the source is cited.

 

[Watchmen]

Just to clarify? You 'believe' that is the primary way 'God' teaches you. (I hope))

I said it's "one of" the primary ways.

 

[Watchmen]

Fair enough.....but let me ask you teh same question I would ask any theist. IF the vast majoity of what you are taught is allegory that is written as though it really happened, how do you disguish between teh stories that a REAL stories and the stories that are just allegory? Be mindful that different sects of religoin consider different ones literal and different ones allegory.

Why is such a distinction important?

Whether or not the story is "real" is irrelevant to the Truth it teaches.

 

[Watchmen]

But then John Steinbeck wrote fiction. Is the BoM fiction?

The majority of LDS will say no.

It is my personal belief that whether the Book of Mormon is fiction or not is irrelevant. It is the Truth the Book of Mormon teaches that is important.

 

[Watchmen]

It's not necessary for anything. In fact, to be correct, it's necessary not to believe it. And, of course, the overwhelming majority of the world's Mormons do believe it, because it's in their book, and their divinely inspired leaders have told them it's true.

I agree. It's not necessary.

No, you're not following me. If the book is wrong about little picture (for several hundred pages) why would you give it any credibility for big picture?

And if it's allegory, then it's really retarded. What on earth is it allegory for, do what God says or he'll turn you black? And why would you need several hundred pages of allegory, for heaven's sake? An allegory should be short and clear, or it's ineffective.

Anyway, is that what you're saying, the BoM is one big, poorly written, plagiarized, long-winded allegory?

I'm following you just fine. Assuming the Book of Mormon is fiction has not relevance to whether it is true. Do Steinbeck's books lose value because they're fiction? And, the allegory is not "really retarded." The allegory is to bring people to Christ. Perhaps it's more accurate to say it's a series of allegories. Also, it's not poorly written - lets see you write a book with limited education over a short period of time that brings millions upon millions of people throughout the world together. Also, if it cites its source it's not plagiarism.

Anything else you'd like to say? Try not to be "retarded" in your answer next time.

 

[Watchmen]

What makes you think I'm advocating the Bible?

What makes you think my response was directed to you?

 

[Autodidact]

The majority of LDS will say no.

It is my personal belief that whether the Book of Mormon is fiction or not is irrelevant. It is the Truth the Book of Mormon teaches that is important.

Just keep saying that while ignoring other people's responses entirely.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree. It's not necessary.



I'm following you just fine. Assuming the Book of Mormon is fiction has not relevance to whether it is true. Do Steinbeck's books lose value because they're fiction? And, the allegory is not "really retarded." The allegory is to bring people to Christ. Perhaps it's more accurate to say it's a series of allegories. Also, it's not poorly written - lets see you write a book with limited education over a short period of time that brings millions upon millions of people throughout the world together. Also, if it cites its source it's not plagiarism.

Anything else you'd like to say? Try not to be "retarded" in your answer next time.

Oh come on. I'm a writer. That's tripe. From a literary point of view, I mean. Good writing is concise, clear and dynamic. The BoM is turgid, verbose and obscure.

But your position, let me get it, is the angel Moroni fiction then? Are the plates fiction?

If the point is to bring people to Christ, wasn't the Bible doing a bang-up job? Why confuse things with a few thousand bloated pages detailing the bloody history of a bunch of made-up tribes of people slaughtering each other? And why present them like they're real?

I mean, Steinbeck didn't come up with some bogus story about finding The Grapes of Wrath under a rock, or put on the title page a statement that its purpose was to "to [show] unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers, did he?

In other words, if you're writing fiction, tell the world it's fiction and let it do what it does, don't lie and say it's fact.

Maybe you have to resort to saying it's allegory as a last refuge when you realize that absolutely nothing in it ever happened.

Also, Watchmen, for you to be right, doesn't the rest of your religion, the whole idea of God speaking through prophets who say completely different, then have to be wrong?

 

[Watchmen]

Just keep saying that while ignoring other people's responses entirely.

I believe I've responded to each post to me. If you don't like my response, that's not my problem.

 

[Watchmen]

Oh come on. I'm a writer. That's tripe. From a literary point of view, I mean. Good writing is concise, clear and dynamic. The BoM is turgid, verbose and obscure.

The Book of Mormon is not intended to be literature. I'm a published writer.

But your position, let me get it, is the angel Moroni fiction then? Are the plates fiction?

Irrelevant.

If the point is to bring people to Christ, wasn't the Bible doing a bang-up job? Why confuse things with a few thousand bloated pages detailing the bloody history of a bunch of made-up tribes of people slaughtering each other? And why present them like they're real?

The Book of Mormon reinforces the Bible and vice versa - it doesn't confuse.

I mean, Steinbeck didn't come up with some bogus story about finding The Grapes of Wrath under a rock, or put on the title page a statement that its purpose was to "to [show] unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers, did he?

We're talking about whether the events portrayed in the Book of Mormon are real - not how the story came to be.

In other words, if you're writing fiction, tell the world it's fiction and let it do what it does, don't lie and say it's fact.

Why? Do the fictitious stories in the Bible identify which are fiction?

Maybe you have to resort to saying it's allegory as a last refuge when you realize that absolutely nothing in it ever happened.

Feel free to believe that if it makes you feel better.

Also, Watchmen, for you to be right, doesn't the rest of your religion, the whole idea of God speaking through prophets who say completely different, then have to be wrong?

Actually, my religion allows for a lot of freedom of belief. It doesn't have to be a matter of right and wrong. Some people take the Genesis account and Adam and Eve literally. Others do not. Either belief is fine.