Some questions for Mormons


xanmad33
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a couple questions for Mormons if it's okay to ask :)

A good friend has been talking a lot with me trying to convert me i suppose to Mormonism but I have some maybe tough questions (maybe you'll think there easy :) )that he has not been able to answer, and I was hoping for some insight from you all if I may...thanks!

1.)My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

2.) Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why?

3.)lastly, (for now ;) )If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted? Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god? That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever. Why should I put my trust in a changing god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's bed time, but I'll try and get through the first two questions:

1. I love to read the Bible. It was written by prophets called of God. Yes, Mormons believe it is the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly. We are Christians indeed. Our beliefs are different because they are not the traditional beliefs of most Christians that have been passed down since Constantine formed a council in Nice, Italy.

Our church is the same church that Christ established in the New Testament built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets who, like in the Bible, were called of God. Christ's church was restored through Joseph Smith, who was called of God, as were the prophets of old. When I say restored, I mean brought back with the same authority, gospel principles and doctrines of the early church at the time Christ was resurrected and all the Apostles were martyred, save John. With no more apostles to receive revelation or hold the authority to act in God's name, the church died and man fell into apostacy.

2. Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”--Introduction page of the Book of Mormon.

We believe the Book of Mormon is another Testament of Jesus Christ and serves to strengthen the truth that our Savior lives, and that salvation comes through Him. It is a direct translation without taint or tarnish that comes from multiple translations and interpretations of men. The other scriptures and discourses are also important as they contain further revelations of the Lord, much like the New Testament would be to the early church when they already had the "law (of Moses) and the prophets".

That's all I have for now. If others don't have a chance to provide more input/answers, I'll be back tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple questions for Mormons if it's okay to ask :)

A good friend has been talking a lot with me trying to convert me i suppose to Mormonism but I have some maybe tough questions (maybe you'll think there easy :) )that he has not been able to answer, and I was hoping for some insight from you all if I may...thanks!

1.)My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

We beleive the Bible, and put equal importance on it as we do other scriptures. We are Christian, though there are some that will deny us that belief.

Here is a link to our articles of faith. This is what our most basic beliefs are:

Articles of Faith 1

2.) Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why?

The Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are our other books of scripture, and as I stated above we place equal importance on all of them.

3.)lastly, (for now ;) )If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted? Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god? That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever. Why should I put my trust in a changing god?

He can be trusted because He is G_d. Here is the thing. Traditional Christianity will read the Bible and come to the conclusions they have. We read the same scriptures and get a different conclusion because of our additional scriptures and a living prophet that help clarify some things. However, if the Bible is read carefully, it is alluded to, but not spelled out.

I think that G_d has a better understanding of our physical trials of life, because He has overcome them all. After all, if He never had a physical body, how then could He understand what is like to be hungry or cold, or ill?

We believe that G_d is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. To us, He has always been G_d, is G_d, and will always be G_d.

If you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then you already believe in the same Deity that we do, we just view Them from a different angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello xanmad33 . i am fairly new and had all the same questions as you do , probably more ? as you do your search , you will find all the answers between this site , the truthisrestored.com and fairwiki.com,, but the best thing to do is to talk to the missionaries or to some one from the nearest LDS. church . and if you still dont agree well so be it, no strings attached. all we can do is give the answers and where to find them , Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit have to do the rest. if you can , go to the testimony section of the LDS. sites . they might lift you up a little bit. keep in touch if you want , let us know how you feel about what you learn and what you think. no one will shame you if you disagree . Heavenly Father loves us all!!!!!!! its my bed time, hope to see you around. tree :bye:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if God had a day before the yesterdays? Psalm 90:2 has God as God "from everlasting to everlasting." Psalm 103:17 has us experiencing Gods mercy "from everlasting to everlasting." I understand the Hebrew word behind it has to do with a long, but hidden period of time. But its uncertain as to its temporal duration. It does not absolutely preclude a beginning for God considering the uncertainties associated with the word. Such uncertain language does not really settle the issue of whether God had a day before the yesterdays.

He is unchanging now, but if he had a day before the yesterdays might have been. But certainly God has not been changeable since the yesterday he is talking about. Only God knows if there was a day before the yesterday when he was changeable. Is such language a rhetorical overstatement, or so unquestionable that it prevents a day before the yesterdays?

We can trust Jesus and he is an exalted man. He is also God. Orthodox Jews will not worship a God who became a man based on Hosea 11:9, ect. So they consider it improper to worship Jesus as God, or the Trinity as representing a false God not worshipped by their fathers. Can Jesus still claim to be God, and not man? If so being an exalted man can claim to be God and not man.

If God the Father ever gives me a chance to shake his hand i will know if he has a body, or not. I tend to avoid the speculation about the beginnings of God as that is speculating something i know nothing about. I don't think God had a beginning. But i will trust him like i do Jesus whether once a man, or not would not matter. The Bible teaches i can trust God is unchangeable. And that God became Jesus even if the Father remained in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

Mormons believe in the Bible, they are Christian, the last part needs to be more specific.

Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why?

This is like asking: 'Is more importance placed on Matthew or Luke?' As long as it is in the canon, it is the same.

If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted? Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god? That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever. Why should I put my trust in a changing god?

Jesus is God. Jesus was born of a mortal mother and lived on the earth. He endured manhood and died. He then rose from the grave and ascended to His throne. He has always been and always will be God, He is unchanging. We trust Him, faith in Him is the first principle of the Gospel. God once lived on the earth as we do now. What portion of this is non-biblical in your view?

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to have significant theological differences with other Christians and still be a Christian. Some of us use a broad definition of Christian that includes people in a variety of faiths that do not always get along. Some use a very narrow definition of Christian that will not dignify LDS with the title of Christian. I consider this narrow definition of Christian to be a made up out of thin air definition. I do not have anything to do with using that definition myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome!

I do not care if you term me "Christian" or not, as long as you understand that I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my Savior and Redeemer. He has rescued me from my sins, and I experience a reconciliation to God through Jesus' sacrifice. I follow Jesus Christ's teaching to the best of my ability, and I am speaking of things such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. My faith in Jesus Christ IS my faith. That is my religion. I belong to the Savior's church that He Himself established and restored: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How is this basic and fundamental belief different than yours, or other Christians? I would say that ALL of our basic and fundamental doctrines are the same as other Christians. It is some additional theory that may be different. (An earlier post gave a link to the Articles of Faith, and I recommend that for understanding "Mormonism".)

Jesus Christ, The Son of God

By the way, your friend knows that he/she cannot convert you. Only the Holy Ghost can. If the Holy Ghost testifies to you that the gospel of Jesus Christ as offered by The Church of Jesus Christ, then that is how your conversion will begin. Again -- if you ask your heavenly Father whether or not you should be baptized into the church of his Son, and He says, yes, then do it; if He says, no, then don't. :)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe in all the words of God, or do my best to do so. I believe that God's words and works are not limited, and that He is still speaking today to the world, and to me. I find it odd that anyone would worship a God who could only speak into one book. I love the Bible. My favorite places are Isaiah and Daniel. I do read the Book of Mormon every day. I think my favorite scriptures of all time are in the Pearl of Great Price, Moses chapter 7 (I recommend you read that if you like! all the scriptures can be found online at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Here are some brief things to read regarding the point of view the Church of Jesus Christ has regarding the Bible.

LDS Newsroom - Reverence for the Bible

The Miracle of the Holy Bible

Scriptural Witnesses

I think I shall forgo answering your third question, as it would require me sharing several scriptures with you, and I honestly have to start the laundry now. Perhaps if I have time later, but I can't guarantee.

However let me point you into other directions that may be helpful for your study.

LDS Newsroom - In Christ Shall All Be Made Alive

Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits

Why Are We Members of the Only True Church?

The Stone Cut Out of the Mountain

Mormon.org

Happy Seeking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.)My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

Like Xhenli i am not overly bothered about being called a Christian for some Latter Day Saints it is so - I have investigated many forms of Christianity and there are many different forms and differences. But I do not believe I am a Christian like you - every Christian has their own relationship with Christ and for me thats what counts. I know I am doing pretty well in my relationship with him

2.) Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why?

They are all the Word of God and they are scripture - the Book of Mormon has had less human influences so is more correct and the current prophet is vital to understanding and applying the Words of God in 2008 - however I place my relationship with God before all else what the Holy Ghost teaches is the most important to me.

3.)lastly, (for now ;) )If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted? Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god? That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever. Why should I put my trust in a changing god?

God is how God is it doesn't matter for me what he is or what he was - now He is my God, He is wise and just and I love the influence He has in my life - you either put trust in God as He is or you don't - He won't change on either yours or my say so he is God. He has more than earned the trust. love and respect I place in him by the way He treats me everyday..

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK first I want to thank everyone for all your responses, and to ask you to be patient with me while I ask some more :) I really appreciate it!

I have been asked what I mean my doctrinal differences, there are so many I will have to gather that info and post it later, they touch on Salvation, Jesus, who God is, the apostacy of the church, heaven, the Bible, humans being created vs. pro-created, many gods vs. one god etc.

I also just want to take a moment to clarify, I have these questions because I want to understand better myself. Someone wrote here already that you only trust the Bible "as far as it has been translated correctly", this is a direct blow to my faith and inferring that my book of faith is faulty or wrong. In an effort to understand why you have that belief, I have done some searching... in searching for what evidences there are concerning that assertation, I have not found them. I found the opposite actually, and I would like to know your thoughts on this info...This is not to argue but to have a respectable discussion in an effort to find truth.

Looking further online for why Mormons believe that the Bible is corrupted and not full or trustworthy in and of itself, I came across these words by a Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:

"Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:

"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change...

It is easy to get lost in debate on details and fail to see the overwhelming agreement of all manuscripts to the historical record of the New Testament...This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament...There is more reason today, then, to agree with him (Sir Frederic Kenyon) that we possess the New Testament 'in substantial integrity' and to underline that 'the variations of the text are so entirely questions of detail, not of essential substance.' It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess." (Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, BYU, 1963, pp. 52-59)"

**Also, in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:

Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:

"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another would appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect, the writing on the stones would remain there. Then Joseph would require the scribe to spell the reading of the last spoken and thus find the mistake and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual." (Journal of Oliver Huntington, 1881, p. 168)

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)

It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:

"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201)

"Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations.

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father."

Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM:

"There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated...

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"

My question is should I trust the BOM over the Bible in light of all this evidence? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post was full of Mormon scholars who have studied hard on the subject, and although I agree that God could do anything, that point really only touches on a very small piece of my entire question. Respectfully I must ask if you read all the quotes I cited and questions I posed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did. And my reply especially in my quote was there will always be something to dispute, doubt, etc. whether it be the possibility of the existence of a city or even the difference in the spelling or grammar of a few words in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. We simply don't know the answers (at least I don't) to all questions. The rest comes with faith and our witness from God as the final authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that I have posed a lot of deep and personal questions but I don't think that because a question is hard or even controversial that it means we should just stop looking.

Truth can withstand scrutiny. All scrutiny.

I am not persectuing Mormons, I am wanting to have an open dialogue and be able to ask questions in a safe place, which I thought this was.

The Bible tells us to study, and to rightly divide the Word of God. We are called to test the spirits and to read the Word of truth.

If you believe this conversation is useless because there will always be doubt, I respect how you feel, However I personally disagree. It is critical to test the authenticity of any book that claims "divine imprimatur". I will say it again, Truth can withstand scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, I do agree. Right now some of those questions are beyond me. I only answered what I could give based on my level or degree of understanding, notwithstanding my testimony. I hope I make sense. There are others on this forum that are more enlightened than me and I'm sure they'll be along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

The truly crucial element of belief in the Atonement through the Son and the salvic Grace given through God are one in the same. Furthermore, the greatest act of Christian love is the acceptance and inclusion of others as well as God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK first I want to thank everyone for all your responses, and to ask you to be patient with me while I ask some more :) I really appreciate it!

Your welcome!

I have been asked what I mean my doctrinal differences, there are so many I will have to gather that info and post it later, they touch on Salvation, Jesus, who God is, the apostacy of the church, heaven, the Bible, humans being created vs. pro-created, many gods vs. one god etc.

There are a lot.

I also just want to take a moment to clarify, I have these questions because I want to understand better myself. Someone wrote here already that you only trust the Bible "as far as it has been translated correctly", this is a direct blow to my faith and inferring that my book of faith is faulty or wrong.

This is not as black and white as it seems. While the Bible started out as writings from prophets, but they were translated into different languages by men. If you have ever studied a foreign language, you will know that there are some words that carry a lot more meaning to them than a single word in english.

We do believe that by and large the Bible is true and accurate, but there are things contained in there that need clarificaiton. This is why several different people can read the same passages and come up with different interpretations.

In an effort to understand why you have that belief, I have done some searching... in searching for what evidences there are concerning that assertation, I have not found them. I found the opposite actually, and I would like to know your thoughts on this info...This is not to argue but to have a respectable discussion in an effort to find truth.

I will answer what I can, but alas, I don't have all the answers either.

Looking further online for why Mormons believe that the Bible is corrupted and not full or trustworthy in and of itself, I came across these words by a Mormon scholar, Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU:

"Mormon writers have often taught that the Bible is a wholly unreliable record in matters of doctrine and history. This is because many "plain and precious truths" were either lost, removed, or corrupted by early Church leaders and later generations. However, modern Mormon scholarship has recently aligned itself with the findings of non-Mormon scholars around the world. Dr. Richard Anderson, of BYU, stated:

"In studying a particular author in antiquity, the classical scholar typically works with a few principal manuscripts, together with a few more extensive fragments or portions of manuscripts. The New Testament scholar, however, faces the wonderful but impossible prospect of attempting to comprehend a text preserved in about 3,000 manuscripts...Nor is sheer quantity most impressive, for the antiquity of his manuscripts should be the envy of all ancient studies...With such an early collection, the question naturally arises how the text is different from the traditional one. Differences lie in numerous details, but the outstanding conclusion is that there is little, if any, significant change...

What you will find in the LDS church is a wide variety of opinion and commentary. While I would agree that LDS scholars have an academic knowledge, I do not look to them to define what the church believes. I look the the church leadership. Here is a link to an article in one of the church magazines that describes how we view the Bible:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question

**Also, in regard to what book is more trustworthy I found this interesting article:

Since the Book of Mormon is claimed to be the Word of God, and Joseph Smith stated, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on the face of the earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p.461), the implication is that this work is perfect in form and content.

Notice he states that it is the "most" correct book, not "only". The implications are for the doctrinal aspects, not of grammar, punctuation and spelling. As a matter of fact, it was dictated without punctuation, chapter headings, or even book segments. All those had to be added in later to make it more readable.

This has also been the understanding of LDS Church authorities during the last 150 years. Joseph Fielding Smith, sixth President of the Church, stated in a sermon:

"Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and letter was given to him by the gift and power of God...

This was his take on an outake from someone's journal that was not even part of the process of translating the Book of Mormon. There are many references to the process by those who did help out in the process, and each wrote about it from a different point of view, however, they all agree that it was translated by the gift and power of G_d. One thing is for certain, is that Joseph Smith dictated it to another, and once the translation process was done it was taken to a printer and had to be typeset by others. There was a chain from G_d to Joseph to a scribe to the printers, and each time a person was involved, there ran a risk of something going wrong.

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President of the Church, has likewise stated:

"Inspiration is discovered in the fact that each part, as it was revealed, dovetailed perfectly with what had come before. There was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting any part to make it fit, but each new revelation an doctrine and priesthood fitted into its place perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it has been prepared by the Master Builder." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. I, p.170)

Speaking of the doctrine revealed, not spelling, grammar or punctuation.

It would seem reasonable to assume, in light of such teachings by Church authorities, that current editions of the Book of Mormon would be identical to the 1830 edition, particularly since God made the translation.

Doctrinally speaking yes, but not on the proof reading.

The following are a few examples of such corrected errors:

1. "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents." (p.15) grammar

2. "...and loosed the bands which was upon my wrists." (p.49) grammar

3. "As I was a journeying." (p.249) - grammar

4. "...they had began to possess the land of Amulon, and had began to till the ground." (p.204) -- grammar

And none of these changes will alter the meaning of the sentence or concept being talked about.

It is difficult to understand how a translation, superintended by the power of God, could contain such basic errors. It also cannot be said that these errors crept in through poor proof-reading or type-setting. Noted Mormon historian, Francis Kirkham, had this to say when considering the vast majority of changes in the original text:

"Such is the nature of the errors in question, and so interwoven are they throughout the diction of the book, that they may not be disposed of by saying they result from inefficient proof-reading or referring them to the mischievous disposition of the 'typos,' or the unfriendliness of the publishing house. The errors are constitutional in their character, they are of the web and woof of the style and not such errors as may be classed as typographical. Indeed, the first edition of the Book of Mormon is singularly free from typographical errors." (Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, The Book of Mormon, 1942, pp.200-201)

Okay, you have a quote, but what errors are they speaking of? You have only listed a few grammatical errors, which really will not change the meaning of anything.

"Far more serious and troublesome are the substantive errors; those that have been corrected which were found to be in conflict with Mormon doctrine. The following are two illustrations.

In the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, on page 32, it reads, "And the angel spake unto me, saying: 'These last records...shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the World; and that all men must come unto Him, or they cannot be saved.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 13:40 in modern editions. Then on page 25 of the 1830 edition it reads, "And he said unto me, 'Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh...' And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me, 'behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father.'" This corresponds to 1 Nephi 11: 18-21. The problem in these sections, and two others, is that Jesus is said to be the Eternal Father, contrary to current Mormon teaching. In later editions, "the Son of God" has been inserted before "the Eternal Father."

This is not contrary to mormon teachings at all. I admit this is a confusing point for a lot of people because the term "Father" can be used to describe Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of this world and everything in it, under the direction of His Father. As the Creator of this world, Jesus is said to be the our Father. There is a distinction between Jesus as being called our Father, and G_d the Father, who is the Father of Jesus. The change was made to bring clairity to the reader as to whom was being spoken of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I came across these remarks made by Dr. Dee Green, Mormon scientist and former editor of U.A.S. Newsletter. In the journal, Dialogue, he states in regard to no archaeological evidence supporting the BOM:

"There have been no spectacular finds, no Zarahemlas discovered, no gold plates brought to light, no horses uncovered, and King Benjamin's tomb remains unexcavated...

True, there have been no "Welcome to Zarahemla" signs found.

The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological half truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that book of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty handed." (Dialogue, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"

While it is true that BYU Archeological students and faculty will call themselves BofM archeologists, the greater archeological world will not adhere to that, and that is fine with me. There has been no definitave evidence that relates to the BofM found as of yet. But I do not base my faith in archeology. Every year there are more and more things discovered that bring us closer.

20 years of archeology, and that being back in 1969, so now it would be 60 years of archeology. Well let's compare BofM archeology with bliblical...Places in the Bible have been constantly inhabited, and known about, and with records kept from, well, biblical times. Places in the Book of Mormon have not been continuosly known about, and the records, most of them, were destroyed by the european conquerors when they came. There have been, litereally, thousands of years of access to bible archeological knowledge, and there are still some places that have not been discovered yet. The bible lands are dry and arid, perfect for preserving archeological evidence.

On the flip side of that, mesoamerican archeology has only been around for 100 years if even that. Central and South America is very humid and wet, not at all conducive for preserving archeological evidence. Even metal will rust and decay very fast, not to mention plants overrunning sites very quickly.

The BofM timetable runs out around 400 AD, so there have been many centuries for other civilizations to take over cities and build on top of them, effectively destroying the previous civilization's evidence.

My question is should I trust the BOM over the Bible in light of all this evidence? If so, why?

I would say forget about all the evidence, read the book and pray with a sincere heart to know whether or not it is true. Basically, if you start out trying to prove it is false, you will find what you are looking for. When we focus too much on one thing, we will miss others that are going on right under our noses.

Whew! you might want to break up your questions into different threads. I had to split up my response because it wouldn't fit on the same page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no clear evidence against the Book of Mormon has been uncovered. Meso-American archeology is pretty deficient in comparison to Old world archeology. All it would take is one uncovered ancient history, place names, people names, ect to directly contradict the book. The debate over horses is still ongoing.

Joseph Fielding Smith wasn't claiming his knowledge on the Book of Mormon translation from his prophetic gift. He was a conservative and did not alway's think what he said through. He was basing his idea the transtlation was innerant from others who did not reliably know what they were talking about. If the translation had been innerantly guided the evidence would support that. Instead the evidence is the book needed textual corrections like any other book.

One of the films i have been studying is Bible vs. The Book of Mormon by Living Hope Ministries. It is the best critics basic case against the book based on archeology and the film is flawed from beginning to end. Brant Gardners review of it is online at http://www,fairlds.org to read. I think he even could have dealt with the Dee Green quote, but i have not watched the whole film again.

The Oliver Huntington quote from his journal is interesting. But the person who said thats how the translation went presumed more than reality shows. It may be that Joseph Smith corrected some mistakes in translation. but the translation was a fairly speedy process. If i recall right they did eight pages a day. To do that would require not alway's do any if rarely metculous corrections, or editing during translation. So unless the Lord stopped and edited the text alway's as they went thousands of grammar changes would not surprise me at all.

Plus if Joseph Smith held that misunderstanding why would he have sumbitted the book to any editing? Many LDS Church Presidents have authorized the editing of the text which would not be needed if they felt Joseph Smiths translation was innerantly got from revelation. Even my Community of Christ/RLDS have edited our own editions of the book over the years. There is a danger in assuming that just because the Lord approved the translation as correct he meant innerant.

The change from mother of God to the son of God does not mean the translation in 1830 was correct. Perhaps out of fear someone would interpret the text as teaching Mary was the mother of God the Father, not the 2nd person in the Trinity the insertion was made. It does not mean at all that the translation in 1830 was not correct.

I do not see anything tou said that has not been responded to by FAIR, or FARMs. I know for sure the Dee Greent quote was dealt with in FAIRS new film The Book of Mormon and New World DNA. THE FAIR bookstore sells it for $9.95 unless the price went up to $12.95. FAIR has a new You Tube Channel. It's FAIR Wiki uses short video clips from upcoming Book of Mormon apologetic films they look like they are planning as sequels to this film.

FAIR has a Topical Guide. It has sections on Biblical Innerancy and Book of Mormon changes. It has some talks that address the issue from its past FAIR conferences.

FAIR Topical Guide: Inerrant

FAIR Topical Guide: Changes in the Book of Mormon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never spent an iota of my religious life (which has been in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) disbelieving the Bible or anything in it. On the contrary, I keep getting into it deeper and deeper. The Bible is taught from every Sunday in one way or another. I learned the Bible for 2 of the 4 years of seminary I took in high school.

The stance of the Church has ALWAYS been -- yes, as Joseph Smith penned Article of Faith 8 this was his thinking -- that the Bible is true. The teachings in it are true. It is the word of God. We are to follow it and obey it. The doctrine in it is true.

The only thing the Church of Jesus Christ wants is to get a Bible that is as close to when it first came from the original writers. We want the cobwebs of the centuries to be moved away. That is all. That is all we have ever meant. There is no other meaning to it. I would imagine that all Christian persons would be similarly motivated.

I can't speak to the archeology as I am not an archeologist, nor do I follow archeology. However, when I read passages such as the following, from the Book of Mormon:

"For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant [this is a point of view before Jesus' birth], that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. And lo, he cometh unto his own, that salvation might come unto the children of men even through faith on his name; and even after all this they shall consider him a man, and say that he hath a devil, and shall scourge him, and shall crucify him. And he shall rise the third day from the dead . . ." Mosiah 3:5-10

I'm supposed to read that, and then set it down, and say, "Oh, that's just not true, because the archeologists haven't found any pre-columbian horse bones."? Ha ha. :lol:

The reason I believe in the Book of Mormon is because I believe in Jesus Christ. If I didn't believe in Jesus Christ, I would have no use for the Book of Mormon (or the Bible). Since I do believe in Jesus Christ, I find him whereever he speaks, anciently or modernly.

You mentioned that the truth can stand scrutiny. Ha ha, we looove talking about this stuff, don't worry about us! By the same token, can the truth "stand" you asking God if the Book of Mormon is true and if Joseph Smith is a prophet? We know we don't have to convince you of anything! thankfully :), because we know that THAT is a conversation between you and your heavenly Father.

I am glad you are here, xan, and I hope you stick around for a while and enjoy yourself and learn. I look forward to learning from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can obtain a replica of an 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon (or you can get an original if you have the means, $50,000.). Anyways, I have the less expensive replica. Every jot is just how the original publication was. No division of chapters and verses, all the irregularities in printing, the whole book looks like a 19th Century product.

What is funny is that the KJV suffers from some of the same grammatical 'errors' that have been corrected by the LDS Church in the Book of Mormon. Example: 'Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness...' (Matt 5:6) Modern LDS editions of the KJV continue to print that.

The original copy of the Book of Mormon said the same in 3 Nephi 12:6, but it was later changed to: 'blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness..'

What should be further noted is that books in 1830 had many grammatical and spelling inconsistencies. A Bible created in the early 19th Century on display at a local museum near my home demonstrates many instances of what we would today call errors.

In Joseph Smith's time, 'it's' was the possesive of 'it' and 'tis' was the contraction of 'it is'. Phrases like 'a journeying' were common. Many of the rules we count on today were formulated long after Joseph Smith's death.

Besides all of this, Joseph Smith gave no impression that the perfection of the volume was in its diction or grammar, but in its meaning. A rigid modern view of any work contemporary with the Book of Mormon would bring about the same perception.

But the greatest thing about the grammatical shortcomings of Joseph Smith and his assistants is 1 Cor 1:27: 'But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty...'

As far as doctrinal changes go, I have yet to see anything that demonstrates an actual change in doctrine. Even the example offered demonstrates that no uniform effort to change the doctrine throughout the volume was made.

The whole issue comes down to the reason to believe in the first place. There are mountains of evidence concerning the fact that there is a group of men in Rome who lead the Catholic Church. We can go there and shake their hands. But does it prove they have any revelation from God? Any authority? That there is a God?

It is possible to cast doubt on any religious tenet or philosophy. Does truth always manifest itself by drawing the least criticism and through the absence of doubt? Is there any truth that has not been critically considered or doubted? If there is, I doubt its true....

-a-train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Green did not claim, as some critics imply, that there was no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon's historicity. He simply recognized that archeology has certain limits in what it can tell us about ancient civilizations. According to Green, the Book of Mormon "is a highly complex record demanding the knowledge of a wide variety of anthro-pological skills from archeology through ethnobiology to linguistics and culture change, with perhaps a little physical anthropology thrown in for good measure."115 Archeological evidence is only one of numerous tools needed to evaluate properly a sophisticated historical document such as the Bible or the Book of Mormon.116 Green pointed out that there was a need to examine the Book of Mormon against the framework of ancient New World cultures, since that is where the book, for the most part, claims to have occurred. Far from rejecting the Book of Mormon, Green suggested that an examination of the Book of Mormon from the perspective of New World Anthropology would help to "tip the scales in our favor."117" (Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? Review of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? by Jerald and Sandra Tanner Reviewed By: Matthew Roper Provo, Utah:FARMS, 1992. Pp.169-215) The FARMS Review is online to read.

I was mistaken and Brant Gardner did not comment on the Dr. Dee Green quote in his review of Bible vs. The Book of Mormon.

I have spent a lot of time reading various critics of Book of Mormon historicity. I am on my latest copy of Mormonism shadow or reality?. I just bought by 4th copy i lost track. The binding is cheap so pages started falling out very badly. I am slowly reading their critical chapters on the Book of Mormon in-between other reading projects. I do not know of one major issue they bring up that does not have a believers alternative perspective.

One book i am studying is Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts. He has been in films which i own like Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith, and the Mormon Puzzle. I understand he is Southern Baptist. I am involved in a slow study of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith film. I read books and watch films critical of Mormonism as a hobby. I see no reason to run out and burn my Book of Mormon yet.

-----------

I got out my copy of Mormonism Shadow or reality? Chapter 5 is entitled The Book of Mormon. (pages 89-93) It has a section on changes in the Book of Mormon. The Oliver Hutnington Jornal Joseph F. Smith cited looks like it originated from a quote by Martin Harris. His problem is he assumed that if the Lord did not correct something it was an innerant translation. He felt the Lord alway's would stop Joseph Smith from making a mistake until he got it right. I think myself that assumes the Lord never allowed Joseph Smith to make mistakes. The evidence goes against the idea God gave him that correct type of translation, so Martin Harris was wrong.

I once read an article entitled No Erasors in The Book of Mormon. Once written on the plates they had no opportunity to revise the text. Who is to say bad grammar was not on the plates? So even if the translation was correct like Martin thought who is to say a correct translation would not include much text in need of editing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get to your first questions (because they are easier). On and welcome to the Forum, I guess that’s your picture?

1.)My friend insists that Mormons believe in the Bible and are "Christians"(like me), so my question to you all is, do you? And if you do then why are our most basic and fundamental beliefs so different?

What is your definition of being a Christian? Is its your view of the bible, or my view of the bible. Because if we took my view of the bible then you wouldn’t be classified as a Christian? So is just having a difference of belief disqualify us for not being labled as Christian? I wouldn’t think so. I would think (at least at its root) being a Christian is just that you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That we believe in the Atoning Sacrifice that he gave to men, and was resurrected so that we all can over come death.

Does matter that I believe Jesus Christ to be the Pre-mortal Jehovah and that we all lived before we were born with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? I hope you can follow my thought. Who decides what makes one person a Christian versus somebody else? Is it just tradition? The majority? Most of these ideas come from this article.

Are Mormons Christian

Even more I suggest you take some time to check out a new section the LDS website all about Jesus Christ.

2.) Is more importance placed on The Book of Mormon, Journals and discourses, Pear of great price, and your church leaders than the Bible? If so why?

Every four years we rotate in Sunday school (the same happens for seminary for High School students). One year Old Testament, One year New Testament, then Book of Mormon, then Doctrine and Covenants. (Pearl of Great price is covered with the Old Testament, And Doctrine and Covenants). Would you classify this as using one more then the other?

Journal of Discourses isn’t really used as a manual (I wish I could get a copy of all of it). But during our third hour of church we learn from Latter Day Prophets. (this year is Joseph Smith). During these times there might be things quoted from Journal of Discourses but its more about the principle being talked about (be in Priesthood, or Repentance or what ever).

So is more importance place on any one book. No, they are group together to be given there own value, including teachings of Latter Day prophets.

If God was once a man, how could he ever be trusted?

Well because he is a GOD NOW!!! If he was a man now, then you probably are right.

Why should I put my faith in a man who has become a god?

Why not? Would think a man that has become a god know how to get through life. Even the tuff times in life. Do you think he knows now how to help you cope with your ups and downs. Would there be anybody else better qualified to help us (humans) then one that knows (and has gone through it)???? Would you rather have a God, that never exprinced a mortality? And you turn to this person for help?

That is distinctly different from the Biblical God who says he is the same yesterday today and forever.

As a God, Heavenly Father has been the same yesterday today and forever. God isn’t talking about the time when he wasn’t God (if we are assuming that).

Why should I put my trust in a changing god?

You can’t, Joseph Smith taught this in the Lectures on Faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an SBC Interfaith Evangelism Bulletin on my Community of Christ. Since we share a belief in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants with LDS so we get similar criticisms. Being two different denominations we publish our own editions. In a section describing our belief in modern revelation it follows a Biblical response.

"The Old and New Testaments, nonetheless, are the unique, revealed, and inspired word of God. Their extant texts are reliable, complete, and were never corrupted. The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice for Christians. All alleged extra-biblical scriptures-such as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants must be rejected as false, misleading, and historically untenable (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Pet.1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). For more information, see "A Closer Look at the Book of Mormon."

We have a local Lutheran pastor who has written a book called Speaking the Truth In Love To Mormons. I met Mark Cares and he pastor's Messiah Lutheran in Nampa, Idaho where i live. He recommends in talking with LDS not to use Rev.22:18,19 to prove a closed to new Book's Bible. He feels its to similar to Deut. 4:2. And that it really applies to the Book of Revelation only. He feels Evangelicals trap themselves when they use it on Mormon's. And he feels better scriptures exist to support the idea.

I do not see 2 Timothy 3:15-17, or 2 Peter 1:19-21 as agreeing with the Biblical response either. I see Revelations 22:18,19, and Proverbs 30:5,6 being given because God did not trust the copyists.

"Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection. Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you a liar." (Proverbs 30:5,6) Rev. 22:18,19 is much harsher on warning the scribes. I find it hard to believe God book's of the Bible without a single case of tampering, but all of a sudden expressed distrust of copyists. Unless of course something had been added, or taken away from Bible manuscripts over the years. But if that happened that whole above Biblical response becomes questionable. The Bible tells me God's pure words can be tampered with, but the Biblical response said it can't. Who do i trust the Bible, or the interpretations of man?

The idea that the Bible has to be the final authority is tied into the idea the Bible verses used really support what was said in the Biblical response. I read the same verses and interpret the Bible in light of the whole Bible. In doing so i become a heretic to those who want me to agree with them based on misinterpreted Bible verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, and it's just my opinion, what was meant in Revelations is that no unauthorized man should take it upon himself to add to the scriptures in as far as interpretation or translation, etc unlike what a prophet through direct revelation could or should do. Only a prophet called of God by His authority could add to it (or take away from it as in verse 19) according to God's own will and not man's. I believe the scripture in Deuteronomy referred to the five books of Moses.

Here's an interesting article: Adding to the Bible - Revelation 22:18

Interestingly there are many books of scripture that, for some reason, were not included in the Bible:

Book of the Covenant--Ex 24:7

Book of the Wars of the Lord--Num 21:14

Book of Jasher--Josh 10:13

A book of Statutes--1 Sam 10:25

Book of the Acts of Solomon--1 Kings 11:41

Books of Nathan and Gad--1 Chron 29:29

Prophecy of ahija and visions of Iddo 2 Chron9:29

Book of Shemaiah--2 Chron 12:15

Book of Jehu--2 Chron 20:34

Acts of Uzziah--2 Chron 26:22

Sayings of the Seers--2 Chron 33:19

Only part of what Jesus did is in the Bible-- John 20:30

Earlier epistle of paul to the Corinthians--1 Cor 5:9

Another epistle of Paul to the Ephesians--Eph 3:3

An epistle of Paul from Laodicea--Col 4:16

Former epistle of Jude--Jude 1:3

Prophecies of Enoch--Jude 1:14

I wonder what happened to these texts. I would love to be able to read them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share