LDS and the Book of Mormon?

LDS and the Book of Mormon
A Jehovah's Witness and a LDS member discussion.

LDS = italics


Well first off It seems your understanding of the Trinity is a little off.

So I quote the following from Wikipedia:

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy. Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).


Reply,


As regards the Trinity, if something is true then it has always been true, it doesn’t take (hundreds of years) until the 4th century for it to become true! And no amount of councils can make it true; if it wasn’t true to begin with!

The Wikipedia is just quoting a man made creed and is not supported by biblical Christianity.

As for being “simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons” this is pure Hellenistic Greek Philosophical Metaphysics (try reading, some of the works of Plato, Plotinus’s Enneads, Parmenides and others…)

You say, “Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).”

“…the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings)…”

If this is truly the case with LDS theology, then Mormons are “polytheists”. As you believe in three separate beings (gods). Not a bible teaching, but extra biblical, and therefore pagan. (end of quote)


"Know our own statement regarding the Godhead is much simpler than the Nicene creed.
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. (First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price)"


When you say, “We believe in… (above)” this wording smacks of Trinitarianism. But then you say that you believe in three separate personages! This to many would be very confusing, as you say you don’t believe in the Trinity as some (on this board) understand it (and I respect their right to believe what they believe), but the wording of your belief leads me to the only conclusion of polytheism-3 separate gods! Again not a bible teaching, but can be found outside of the bible.

You quote,

“(First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price). This document has no authority whatsoever. The bible itself is the only authority. (end of quote)


"As to the nature of God and the Godhead I provide the following:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) "
Quoted from this message
Reply,

The above is not supported by the bible. The words you use, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit”, have more in common with Greek Mythology than the bible... The Greeks made the gods in their image and not the other way round.

And saying, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also…” Is diametrically opposed to what the bible teaches.

1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”

Yes, as the bible plainly and clearly teaches, “flesh” and “blood” cannot inherit God’s kingdom. And it is of no use to try and add “bones” to make it palatable!

Just as, “…neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”, likewise with the “flesh” and heaven, otherwise, we could turn around and say, “…corruption [does] inherit incorruption”. Brackets mine for emphasis!



As regard “God” what does the bible say, as opposed to, “Doctrine and Covenants 130:22”?

John 4:24 (King James Version)

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”.
See also, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Eph 2:22.
Think about it! (end of quote)



"So there are two Physical Bodies and a Personage of Spirit, so three separate beings. For how they are one:

Though each God in the God-head is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others yet they are "one God", meaning that that are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith.

Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things, and yet they are three separate and distinct personalities ... The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints. (Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie)"

Again, you say, “So there are two Physical Bodies…”



Again, this is not what the bible teaches:

1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)

“Now this I say, brethren, that “flesh” … cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”

Notice the parallel contrast; “flesh” with “corruption”.



“For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge…”



If each has the fullness of knowledge, then whatever one knows the other knows, none would be ignorant of certain facts or would have to be given any etc.

Revelation 1:1 (King James Version)

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.

As regards knowing, knowledge, it would seem to contradict:

“Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie”.

The emphasis being on (knowledge)-“For instance each has the fullness of … knowledge…”

In the Revelation given to John, it would seem that John had to be given the revelation by an angel sent by Christ! In turn, Christ had to given the revelation by God! At this time Christ is in heaven, not on the earth.

But if the Father and the Son are coequal, how could the Son be ignorant of things the Father knows? Like John and the (sent) angel, Jesus had to be given the revelation in order to hand it down from its source! Just as John and the angel were not the source of the revelation, neither was Jesus the source of the revelation-he was given it!

‘Jesus had two natures,’ some will answer. ‘When on earth he spoke as a man.’ (See Mark 13:32 KJV below)

And, yet, even if that were so, what about the “Holy Ghost”? If it is the third person of the Trinity, why does it not know? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And the “Holy Ghost” is part of the “Trinitarian” chain.

Mark 13:32 (King James Version)

“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”

If the spirit was a person, don’t you think Mark would have included the Holy Spirit in knowing or not knowing? The fact is, he didn’t! (end of quote)


"So when you say Trinity, I and the rest of the English speaking world think of One God who is somehow three manifestations. We believe in Three Gods who are one in purpose and I suppose we could have used the word Trinity had not someone else used the word for a different doctrine."



You say, “We believe in Three Gods…” It is totally irrelevant when you say, “…are one in purpose…” That is beside the point! The true point is, your belief, you believe in three gods, therefore, you believe in 3 gods, and therefore you are polytheistic. Not a bible teaching, that finds its authority outside the bible.




"As regards the Comma I actually did know about it. But let's declare my biblical prejudice:

With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.

However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.

The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bible; Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures)"



“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.”


We are now in possession of thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts going back to approximately (between) the 2nd cent upwards etc. So why have the LDS not revised and modernised the attitude towards the KJV and its some 20,00 errors.


Again, you quote “Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures” as if a recognised authority! As far as the bible is concerned it has no authority whatsoever!


“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.

However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”



“However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”


In the light of many manuscripts being found how the LDS can say,”… the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions”.

This is really beyond belief and ridiculous to say the least!

Like Christendom the LDS holds to doctrines that are not supported by the bible, these doctrines are extra-biblical and that some of the LDS belief system have elements taken from Greek philosophy and Oriental Buddhism, i.e. Life before birth, life after death… and others. These and other beliefs are to be found in the above. Not a bible teaching.


It is obvious you do not know that the KJV of the bible has over 20,000 errors in it!

The Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the KJV of the Bible, with its Shakespearean English, and it’s over 20,000 errors which were already considered archaic in Joseph Smith’s day.

It has troubled some people that The Book of Mormon, this “most correct” of books, lifts at least 27,000 words directly from the Bible version that is purportedly full of errors and that Smith later undertook to revise, the KJV! In other words, the book of Mormon has incorporated in it the same errors carried over from the KJV. The Book of Mormon itself has had several revisions and changes since the original.

A very interesting point to note as regards the book of Mormon:

A comparison of the first edition of The Book of Mormon with current editions reveals to many Mormons a surprising fact. The book said to be “translated. . . by the gift and power of God” has itself undergone numerous changes in grammar, spelling, and substance.

Who is “the Eternal Father”?

For instance, there is apparent confusion over the identity of “the Eternal Father.”

According to the first edition at 1 Nephi 13:40, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father.”

But later editions say that “the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.” The two original 1830 manuscripts of The Book of Mormon still exist. One of the two originals, held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has the words “the Son” added between the lines. Can you explain this?

Also,

As for the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, the book The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by LDS scholar Lyndon W. Cook, explains in the preface:


Significant textual additions and deletions.

“Inasmuch as some revelations have been revised by those committees appointed to arrange them for publication, significant textual additions and deletions have been noted.” One such alteration is found at Book of Commandments 4:2, which said of Smith: “He has a gift to translate the book. . . I will grant him no other gift.”

Now please note this:


But when the revelation was reprinted in 1835 in Doctrine and Covenants, it read:

“For I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”—5:4.can you explain this as regards this “most perfect of books?”
I would like you to explain some of these “ENIGMAS”?

I find it difficult to reconcile that about 20 Jews were said to have left Jerusalem for America in 600 B.C.E. but that in less than 30 years, they had multiplied and split into two nations!

How many children can a woman produce in a year, even if she had twins or triplets etc-why not work it out? If there were some 20 Jews and let’s say that three quarters were women - say fifteen women, who had at least twins if not triplets on average, once per year…how do you get two sprawling civilizations out of 15 women (2 Nephi 5:28) within 19 years of their arrival?

This small band supposedly built a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon. . ., and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine”—a formidable task, indeed! The seven-year construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem occupied nearly 200,000 labourers, craftsmen, and overseers.—and yet there is nothing to show for it, no artefacts…2 Nephi 5:16; compare 1 Kings 5, 6.

Where is the archaeological evidence to be found to substantiate such a claim? If I go to the middle east and elsewhere, I see the evidence of ancient civilizations everywhere, where is your evidence?

Also,

Can you explain?

Careful readers of the Book of Mormon have puzzled over certain events that seem out of proper chronological sequence.

When were the first Christians?

For example, Acts 11:26 says: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (KJ) But Alma 46:15, purportedly describing events in 73 B.C.E., has Christians in America before Christ ever came to earth.

How do you get Christians before Christianity (ever existed 73 BC) was brought about by divine providence?

Also,

Perhaps you could explain?

The Book of Mormon presents itself more as a historical narrative than as a doctrinal treatise. The phrase “and it came to pass” occurs about 1,200 times in the current edition—about 2,000 times in the 1830 edition. Many places mentioned in the Bible still exist, yet the locations of virtually all sites named in The Book of Mormon, such as Gimgimno and Zeezrom, are unknown. Where are they?

Also,

The Mormon story tells of vast settlements across the North American continent.

Helaman 3:8 reads:

“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread. . . to cover the face of the whole earth.” According to Mormon 1:7, the land “had become covered with buildings.” Many people wonder where the remains of these sprawling civilizations are. Where are the Nephite artefacts, such as gold coins, swords, shields, or breastplates?—Alma 11:4; 43:18-20. The civilizations of the bible are there to be seen, but not so much as one in the book of Mormon.

Also,

You need to think about this:

Considering such questions, members of the Mormon faith do well to reflect seriously on the words of Mormon Rex E. Lee:

“The authenticity of Mormonism stands or falls with the book from which the Church derives its nickname.” A faith based upon solid Scriptural knowledge, rather than just on an emotional prayer experience, presents a challenge to sincere Mormons—as well as to all claiming to be Christians.”

Is it possible for you as an LDS member to correct what I have written? Perhaps, I have misunderstood you! I will stop the discussion here, as it will be updated later.

letusreason