Zone1 Mormons are fine, but I have to call BS on the golden plates story.

[onefour1]

Every offshoot of the Christian religion picks and chooses the portions of the Bible they like, while leaving the rest. I could start a new religion based solely on small portions of the Bible. I could add stuff I like and create my own set of rules, regulations, and laws, and I could make myself the boss. But then, that would make me a cultist.

Paul also taught that until we all come to a unity of the faith that there would be apostles and prophets in the church.

Ephesians 4:11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Since we have not come to the full stature and measure of the fulness of Christ, I would tend to believe that prophets are still needed in the church of Jesus Christ as Paul taught. What good is a prophet if he can never prophesy today and the canon is closed. Yet Paul tells us that they are a necessary part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus Paul is saying that there would be continuing prophecy in the church just as Peter received when he learned that Jesus was the very Son of God. So am I really just picking and choosing a portion of the Bible and what other part of the bible refutes this notion? Was Paul wrong in his teaching?

 

[Robert W]

The Bible is 100% God's "part." His will shall be done in Heaven and on earth. He's God!! Do you believe that He would allow His Word to be tainted, or do you think He's powerful enough to assure that His message is preserved for eternity?

Both Testaments are not only spiritually significant but also historically significant. It's His Story (history) from start to finish. From Creation to Christ's birth to His death and resurrection, all culminating with His return. It's not up to weak, frail, unrighteous, fallen man to determine which parts are true and which are false. We aren't free to pick and choose the parts we like and leave the rest by the wayside.

I think you sincerely believe that. But bear one thing in mind. God did not create the pair of Bibles I told about. Men did this. We trust in those men. This is why we LDS say the Bible as it is correctly translated.

 

[Robert W]

Personally I don't think they are golden at all.

Solid Baloney is my guess.

It might be similar to Calculus to you. So long as you are ignorant, there is no reason for you to believe. Millions of Christians believe the Bibles used and also the Book of mormon and our Doctrine and Covenants.

 

[ActionJackson]

Paul also taught that until we all come to a unity of the faith that there would be apostles and prophets in the church.

Ephesians 4:11-14
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Since we have not come to the full stature and measure of the fulness of Christ, I would tend to believe that prophets are still needed in the church of Jesus Christ as Paul taught. What good is a prophet if he can never prophesy today and the canon is closed. Yet Paul tells us that they are a necessary part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus Paul is saying that there would be continuing prophecy in the church just as Peter received when he learned that Jesus was the very Son of God. So am I really just picking and choosing a portion of the Bible and what other part of the bible refutes this notion? Was Paul wrong in his teaching?

Like I said ... certain religious groups will use the Bible and quote from it when it's convenient to do so. But those parts of the Bible they don't like will always be deemed "mistranslations." Either the Bible is completely true and can be completely trusted or it's full of mistranslations and cannot be trusted. Which is it?

 

[ActionJackson]

I think you sincerely believe that. But bear one thing in mind. God did not create the pair of Bibles I told about. Men did this. We trust in those men. This is why we LDS say the Bible as it is correctly translated.

Does God inspire men to do Godly things or do men inspire themselves.

2 Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

 

[AHZ]

The story is bunkum. There is no such language as "reformed Egyptian," and Smith's translation ability was proven to be total nonsense through his faux translation of the "Book of Abraham." This document was later proven to be a funerary tract, having nothing to do with Abraham, and written more than a thousand years after Abraham lived. The silly group of toadies who claimed to have seen the golden plates have mostly been neutered through later admissions and disavowing.

People who actually think about reality have determined that given the specific gravity of gold and the length of the BoM, the plates would have had to weigh at least a hundred pounds, which is totally inconsistent with Smith's tales of him carrying them around as though it were no heavier than a conventional, paper bible.

When you TRANSLATE a work from another language, you take the original meaning, and re-state it into the target language - in this case 19th century American English. Smith didn't do that. He created a document that employs 16th century British English, just like the King James Version. But Smith didn't understand the niceties of that language, misusing Thee, Thou, and adding "est" to verbs in a helter-skelter fashion.

The "history" set forth in the BoM is totally preposterous. It mentions horses, camels, cows, sheep, none of which existed in the pre-Columbian Americas. He talks of iron swords and breastplates; again, there was no iron in these continents. Same for chariots; the wheel had not yet been discovered in pre-Columbus days. In fact, Brigham Young University has spent more than a hundred years and untold resources trying to find a single archaeological proof of the BoM. Total failure. Nothing. Not a single artifact.

Those who are impressed by little things like genetics have noted that, although Smith believed that Amerindians were the descendants of the BoM Semitic people, but there is no genetic indication that this is the case.

Those who have done even a little bit of investigation know that an early partial draft of the Book was destroyed by the wife of Smith's co-conspirator, Oliver Cowdery. Smith, fearful that Ms. Cowdery was lying, agreed to re-translate the text, but cautioned Cowdery that the text might not be the same as the original text. Why would be do this if he was actually translating, and not making it up?

Nothing against Mormons, but their religion is based on quicksand.

and judaism is clearly racism.

next.

 

[Crepitus]

It might be similar to Calculus to you. So long as you are ignorant, there is no reason for you to believe. Millions of Christians believe the Bibles used and also the Book of mormon and our Doctrine and Covenants.

Are you trying to say non mormons use your book and not their own?

"Cause we all know that's bullshit.

 

[surada]

The story is bunkum. There is no such language as "reformed Egyptian," and Smith's translation ability was proven to be total nonsense through his faux translation of the "Book of Abraham." This document was later proven to be a funerary tract, having nothing to do with Abraham, and written more than a thousand years after Abraham lived. The silly group of toadies who claimed to have seen the golden plates have mostly been neutered through later admissions and disavowing.

People who actually think about reality have determined that given the specific gravity of gold and the length of the BoM, the plates would have had to weigh at least a hundred pounds, which is totally inconsistent with Smith's tales of him carrying them around as though it were no heavier than a conventional, paper bible.

When you TRANSLATE a work from another language, you take the original meaning, and re-state it into the target language - in this case 19th century American English. Smith didn't do that. He created a document that employs 16th century British English, just like the King James Version. But Smith didn't understand the niceties of that language, misusing Thee, Thou, and adding "est" to verbs in a helter-skelter fashion.

The "history" set forth in the BoM is totally preposterous. It mentions horses, camels, cows, sheep, none of which existed in the pre-Columbian Americas. He talks of iron swords and breastplates; again, there was no iron in these continents. Same for chariots; the wheel had not yet been discovered in pre-Columbus days. In fact, Brigham Young University has spent more than a hundred years and untold resources trying to find a single archaeological proof of the BoM. Total failure. Nothing. Not a single artifact.

Those who are impressed by little things like genetics have noted that, although Smith believed that Amerindians were the descendants of the BoM Semitic people, but there is no genetic indication that this is the case.

Those who have done even a little bit of investigation know that an early partial draft of the Book was destroyed by the wife of Smith's co-conspirator, Oliver Cowdery. Smith, fearful that Ms. Cowdery was lying, agreed to re-translate the text, but cautioned Cowdery that the text might not be the same as the original text. Why would be do this if he was actually translating, and not making it up?

Nothing against Mormons, but their religion is based on quicksand.

What about the Nephites and the Lamanites?

 

[surada]

Worthless comment. Next.

Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites had to live somewhere??? What about Mulek or barley?

 

[cnm]

The story is bunkum.

Have faith, brother.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This document was later proven to be a funerary tract, having nothing to do with Abraham, and written more than a thousand years after Abraham lived.

The document you are referencing was never identified by Joseph Smith as the one he translated.

 

[surada]

The document you are referencing was never identified by Joseph Smith as the one he translated.

The Lord directs Jaredites on journey to a new land

The Church News’s mission is to record the news and growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the ministry of its leaders. Learn more.

www.thechurchnews.com

How did the Jaredites get to America?
The Lord commanded them to build eight barges on which they were to sail to the promised land. In A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, Daniel H. Ludlow wrote: "The record of Ether provides only a brief description of the barges built by the Jaredites to cross the great sea.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Have not read the entire 18 pages of this thread.

One thing the Book of Mormon says is that was written for our day.

How did the Jaredites get to America?

You have as much information on the subject as I do.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I have not read all 18 pages of this thread.

I would say, if not said already, that we are told the Book of Mormon was written for our day.

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

It might also interest you to know is that there are several themes of the book (a book that is an abridgement or condensation of records meaning the messages were hand picked).

1. Pride is what eventually wipes out the Nephites. Ezra Taft Benson wrote (but G.B. Hinkley delivered) a powerful address in 1989 entitled Beware of Pride. If you can bring yourself to listen to it, I think you'll find it has application today.

2. The Book of Mormon says a great deal about government. In fact, one of Mosiah II's teachings is almost quoted in Federalist 2 where Jay says it would be great if we had good men to rule over us, but you can't count on that. It teaches that the direction of the government is directly tied to the moral fibre of the people being governed. Meaning you can't expect government to replace or enforce what is not taught at home.

3. A term used in the book is "Secret Combinations" meaning conspiring individuals who gather for the express purpoes of inflicting their will on others (taking over). And Secret Combinations are often an issue for the Nephites as they take over the government in several instances.

People might not have seen it as relevant 100 years ago, but today it seems quite so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The document you are referencing was never identified by Joseph Smith as the one he translated.

Yup and what they claim it is is nothing but a scrap remaining after a fire I believe.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Bible is 100% God's "part."

The Bible is a great book of scripture.

Can you explain to me how (and when) the bible came to be.

Christ taught in John 5:

39 ¶ aSearch the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which btestify of me.

What scriptures was he referencing ? The "bible" didn't exist then. What did he mean ?

 

[ActionJackson]

The Bible is a great book of scripture.

Can you explain to me how (and when) the bible came to be.

Christ taught in John 5:

39 ¶ aSearch the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which btestify of me.

What scriptures was he referencing ? The "bible" didn't exist then. What did he mean ?

He was referring to the Old Testament prophecies and written, historical documentation. Those Scriptures did exist, for Christ often used the term: "It is written."

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yup and what they claim it is is nothing but a scrap remaining after a fire I believe.

Not sure. I know Nibley wrote an entire (and thick) book on the subject.

One of his fundamental points is that the entire argument is manufactured.

On another topic, the last three books of the Book of Moses coincide quite well with the Book of Enoch, a book that was lost and not really available until 1850.

There is an entire book on that by Nibley. It is quite informative. It puts Enoch is a very special place and it also explains why the flood had to happen.

 

[HikerGuy83]

He was referring to the Old Testament prophecies and written, historical documentation. Those Scriptures did exist, for Christ often used the term: "It is written."

But there was no New Testament.

When was it created ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Like I said ... certain religious groups will use the Bible and quote from it when it's convenient to do so. But those parts of the Bible they don't like will always be deemed "mistranslations." Either the Bible is completely true and can be completely trusted or it's full of mistranslations and cannot be trusted. Which is it?

That is not convenience. Prophets existed through Old Testament times. They taught of Christ.

If you are saying the Bible is "perfect" I would say that is simply not the case.

How was the Bible we have today created ?