can we trust the book of Mormon?

Hi almeyda,Excellent topic, if I may say so. I've been waiting for ages for something like this to come up.I've been to the LDS church a few times and also to their Bible study classes. They are a very interesting 'religion', they have to reaffirm evey Sunday their belief in Joseph Smith and have an interesting interpretation of the Godhead, among other things.But, you have to realize, they only take advantage of the ambiguity of the Bible, interpreting it to fit their worldview.It's true that there is no archaelogical evidence supporting the BoM, but that, in itself, doesn't discredit it. There is no archaelogical evidence for many events & places in the Bible, let's not forget.

quote:

---

If the book of Mormon was first penned between 600B.C and 421AD, as claimed. How could it contain extensive quotations from the AD.1611 KJV, using archaic King James english, which was not written more than 1000yrs later?

---

It's my understanding that the BoM is alleged to be the translation of an ancient gospel. Joseph Smith translated it with the help of the angel Moroni and John the Baptist. If that's the case, then you shouldn't be surprised if it contains extensive quotations from KJV, as that was the Bible that Smith knew almost by heart and would have mentally used it as a translation model.

quote:

---

Mormons gladly call themselves christians. But is this justified???

---

Yup, they have accepted Jesus Christ as their saviour. It may not be the same Jesus as the one you believe in, but that's God's fault not the Mormons'.

quote:

---

does this have the evidence that would have to apply to Holy scripture, or for a revelation from a true living God?

---

maybe if you told us what this evidence should be, we could take it from there....

quote:

---

But the question i ask to you now is, can we trust the book of Mormon to be a revelation from God, or rather a 'better' revelation from God?

---

Why not ? You can't accept the Bible and reject the BoM, using the same standards on both !

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Moroni, the angel who appeared to Smith, was the son of Mormon, an elder of a Jewish tribe called the Nephites who had migrated to the Americas. Mormon was the one who had originally written the gospel.Allegedly, while Joseph Smith was translating the infamous golden plates, John the Baptist appeared to him and ordained him to restore the true church by preaching and publishing the true gospel, which had been lost from the earth.Now, if you happily accept that someone raises himself and others from the dead, heals lepers, ousts demons, walks on water, etc. why is John the Baptist appearing to help restore the true church a problem ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Deut. 4:2: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. (NIV)

​

Prov. 30:6: Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar. (NIV)

---

Even if these verses are interpreted the way you interpret them, it still means nothing, as Mormons claim that the BoM is part of the scriptures, that was lost and re-discovered. It's not an addition to God's word, it is God's word.**EDIT to add last sentence.This message has been edited by Legend, 11-09-2004 06:39 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

The Book of Mormon is a seperate book from the Bible and cannot be trusted to be Gods word

---

Nope, according to the Mormon church the BoM is just another part of God's word.Tell me, how can you trust that, say, Luke's Gospel is God's word ? What are your criteria for determining what is God's word ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

You missed my point. You are working on the assumption that the Bible, as we know it, is the Word of God. You have decided this to be so and are comparing the BoM to it, based on this assumption.I'm making no assumptions. Here are two books, both claiming to be the word of God. How can you reject one and accept the other without a priori assumptions?What criteria have you applied to the Bible when you decided it's the word of God? Have you applied the same criteria to the BoM and if yes, how did the BoM fail ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I've got a leaflet from the local nutter preching down the road, claiming that it's the word of God. Its unambiguous and I've got the reading skills to understand it clearly. Does that mean it is the word of God ?!You seem to be implying that the Bible doesn't claim to be the word of God. If that's the case then we're debating a moot point.If, however, you think that the Bible is and the BoM isn't, I have to ask you how do you know without prior assumptions? Please see my post to PecosGeorge above.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Hi Robb,let's go through your points one by one:* Historical accuracy I agree with you that the Bible is better supported historically than the BoM. But historically accuracy in itself doesn't prove divine origin or accuracy of content. The latest Steven Pressfeld novel I read is historically very accurate, but it describes a fictional story. If you disagree with this, we can open a new thread and discuss it further.* Consistency of the message from book to book. I strongly disagree. There are huge dogmatic inconsistencies between the O.T and the N.T. In the O.T we have a vengeful, petty deity who smites people who oppose his chosen ones. In the N.T we have a hippy, all loving, deity who doesn't directly interfere in human affairs but sends his 'son' to die so he can comply with his sacrificial 'rules', though no such rules have been mentioned before. For some very thorough arguments on this go here : Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins* No Contradictions . ...what can I say? I'm not laughing but this has been covered to death here. There are tons of factual errors ( how many legs do insects have?), mistranslations (7000 or 70000 soldiers?) and internal contradictions (compare Matthew's resurrection account against the others ). They can all be 'explained' away, but very few can be satisfactorily answered. I think there may be some active threads on this already, but if there aren't feel free to open a new one and I'll join you.* Biblical Prophecy . My favourite subject. Sadly, this is not the thread to discuss this, but -guess what- I've already started a new thread
Here . Hopefully I'll see you there.* Personal experience . I totally believe you when you say your life has improved as a result of your faith. But you have to realise that if that was the result of believing in the Bible, then only Christians would have their lives improved in similar ways. Mormons, Muslims, etc. all have their owm personal experiences that they atrribute to their faith. I don't think you can claim this as proof of the divine origin of the Bible over the BoM.So, overall, Personal Experience and Historical Accuracy are irrelevant. Consistency of message doesn't even apply in the BoM case (it's only one book by one author). That leaves us with the Contradictions and Prophecy issues.Prophecy, we can discuss Here . like I said.Do you know of any contradictions in the BoM? If there weren't any, would you accept it as the word of God ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

no, i think personal experience is the ONLY relevant point. how else do we tell? it's ALL opinion, all faith.

---

that's * exactly * my point! If opinion and faith is all that matters when it comes to determining divinity, then, heck, the aforemenioned nutter's leaflet is of divine nature, as there's at least one opinion (his) that says so. Opinions are like a**eholes: everybody's got one.If people claim that they are convinced of the divine nature of a book, because of a 'burning in their bosom', that's fine by me and I can't argue with this, other than recommend some indigestion medicine.If people claim that they are convinced of the divine nature of a book, because it meets a certain set of standards (prophecy, consistency, etc), then I expect them to apply the same standards to ALL other books that claim the same, otherwise they are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards.

quote:

---

i've heard stuff about the documents he called "the book of moses" turning out to be egyptian funerary pages (from the book of the dead). but that was just christian propaganda, so i dunno how accurate it is.

---

I think you're referring to the Abraham Papyri fiasco. That wasn't propaganda but genuine egg on the face of LDS church. You can read the whole sad story here.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I see your point, but, hey, I'm not the one claiming the Bible to be the infallible word of God, people like Robb are.All I'm saying is this: if you believe so, because it meets certain criteria, you should be prepared to apply the same criteria to any other book that is claimed to be divine, or you're a hypocrite.

quote:

---

maalox works pretty well. or holy water, if you believe in demons.

---

I've tried holy water but it burns!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

be prepared to apply the same standard of credulity to the book you believe in.

---

absolutely! I should have emphasized that!

quote:

---

I've tried holy water but it burns!

​

Arachnophilia writes:

​

that means it's working.

​

---

and sunlight causes my skin to dissolve. It all started when that bat bit me...

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

I have an idea, lets form a religion that picks up where the New Testament leaves off that way we can have our ready made religion and have the ability to alter the text as we see fit. Oh,, it's been done. Darn.

---

ouch...claws in please, they're nice people you know!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."