The Mormoms

[divine]

Hope this is nothing sensitive, otherwise, pse delete.

2 weeks ago I have to worked on a Sunday, hence didn't attend my my church which is charismatic. After my lunch, I just popped over to a church which is across my work place which incidentally have a afternoon service- The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. I didn't know the denimination is Mormom until I sat down and asked the one sitting besides me. I look forward to the preaching but there wasn't any sermon at all. The guy besides me said its not their practice to have preachers preaching from the pulpit, but instead the learning is from breaking up into various groups and learn from each other thru' individual assigned learders. So for almost an hour sitting on the pew, there's only testimonies read from volunteers on stage and many a times they mentioned they are so grateful to the teachings from the "Book of Mormom".

My questions;

1) Do they believed in Jesus Christ and He has died for their sin?
2) Why they are so sure the words from 'The Book of Mormons" are God's inspired?

Pardon me if this topic is not appropriate as I'm new to this forum and I may have overstep a sensitive issue.

 

[Boanerges]

The Mormons are a cult.
Mr Joseph Smith Jr. supposedly received revelation from an angel named Moroni (drop the i and you have moron). He was "told" that the bible is imcomplete and that God was only one of a race of Gods (amongst other lies). What does the scripture say about this? They are twice damned:
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Pray for your friends.

From CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry):
A Comparison Between Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine

"Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it and see if it will stand the test"
(Brigham Young, May 18, 1873, Journal of Discourses, vol. 16, p. 46.)
​

Following is a comparison between Christian doctrine and Mormon doctrine. It will become very obvious that Mormonism does not agree with the Bible. In fact, Mormonism has simply used the same words found in Christianity and redefined them. But with a proper understanding of what Mormonism really teaches, you will be able to see past those definitions into the real differences between Christianity and Mormonism.
The difference is the difference between eternal life and damnation.
Topic

Christian

Mormon

GOD There is only one God (Isaiah 43:11; 44:6,8; 45:5). "And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light (Book of Abraham 4:3). God has always been God (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 57:15). "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . .


We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). God is a spirit without flesh and bones (John 4:24; Luke 24:39). "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's," (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; Compare with Alma 18:26-27; 22:9-10).



"Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).


TRINITY The Trinity is the doctrine that there is only one God in all the universe and that He exists in three eternal, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. "That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35). JESUS Jesus was born of the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23). "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547). Jesus is the eternal Son. He is second person of the Trinity. He has two natures. He is God in flesh and man (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2;9) and the creator of all things (Col. 1:15-17). Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15). THE
HOLY
SPIRIT The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. He is not a force. He is a person. (Acts 5:3-4; 13:2) Mormonism distinguishes between the Holy Spirit (God's presence via an essence) and the Holy Ghost (the third god in the Mormon doctrine of the trinity).
"He [the Holy Ghost] is a being endowed with the attributes and powers of Deity, and not a mere force, or essence," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 144). SALVATION Salvation is the forgiveness of sin and deliverance of the sinner from damnation. It is a free gift received by God's grace (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 6:23) and cannot be earned (Rom. 11:6). Salvation has a double meaning in Mormonism: universal resurrection and . . .
"The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins," (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79). Salvation (forgiveness of sins) is not by works (Eph. 2:8; Rom. 4:5; Gal. 2:21). "As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements -- 'obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'" (Articles of Faith, p. 79). BIBLE The inspired inerrant word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It is authoritative in all subjects it addresses. "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . ." (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church). This is only a sample of many of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. As you can see, they are quite different doctrines. God cannot be uncreated and created at the same time. There cannot be only one God and many gods at the same time. The Trinity cannot be one God in three persons and three gods in an office known as the Trinity, etc. These teachings are mutually exclusive.
This is important because faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Is the Mormon god the real one? Or, is the God of historic and biblical Christianity the real one?
Mormonism is obviously not the biblical version of Christianity. It is not Christian, and Mormons serve a different god than do the Christians -- a god that does not exist. Paul talks about this in Gal. 4:8, "when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods." Only the God of the Bible exists. There are no others. Mormonism puts its faith in a non-existent god.


CARM has dozens of articles on this cult and is just one of the many good places to get info on them.

 

[divine]

The Mormons are a cult.

Thanks for the insight.

Though i sat down only for a short one hr, I wasn't convince at all even simply hearing from a few testimonies. Alot of self effort.

BTW, do Mormons go to heaven then?

 

[Boanerges]

According to the scriptures they are worshiping a false Christ and a false God.
They most certainly can come to salvation if they leave what God has cursed (false and dead religion)and come to a living relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

 

[divine]

According to the scriptures they are worshiping a false Christ and a false God.
They most certainly can come to salvation if they leave what God has cursed (false and dead religion)and come to a living relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Ironically, after when members finished saying their testimonies, they always end up saying in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Seems like a standard procedure.

 

[Boanerges]

True they may say His Name but many shall call Him Lord Lord and yet He will tell them "I never knew you". This is very sad and a call to prayer.

If I may be so bold as to offer a word of advice. If you are going to minister to any of these folks do your homework. Find out who they are and what they believe. Find out what the Word of God really says and be prepared to be tested. Like any typical cult they are well trained in tripping people and blending truth with lies.

 

[HoneyBare]

Divine, I've been a Mormon. Two missionary boys knocked on my door when I was in the process of attempting to commit suicide. So, I owed them my life, and became a Mormon convert. The reason they repeat so much is also a cult thing. If you can make someone say something over and over, you finally believe it, at least you think you do.

The thing about their "testimonies" is that they felt the "burning in their bosom," which is spoken of in the Book of Mormon; that is their indication that the Bom is true. I felt that burning too. Only, now I realize it was a demon, or the angel maroni. No, I'm not laughing. It was a long time before I was not bothered again by that feeling. It was a great feeling at first, almost sensual in fact. But, after I decided Joe Smith was an imposter, and left the church, it became more like a smothering in my throat. I didn't even realize what it was until I surrendered my life to Christ, at the leading of Bro. Boanerges, in fact.

It was too scarey to talk to anyone about it at the time, but my testimony now is that I know for sure that the Bom is not real, but a fake, and that is my testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ. lol

If you have any other questions, google exmormons and you can read their testimonies. Pretty revealing. And yes, it is dangerous to talk with them unless you know a lot more about what they believe, I agree with Bo. Bless you.

 

[divine]

Thanks Honeybare, and I'm so glad you finally knew who the real God is, ie. our beloved Lord Jesus Christ who has died for our sin.

I'm just again curious though not to intentionally to stir the pot with you.

1) Do they have altar call and how do they recieve salvation (if any). How was the formality to recieve their so call salvation.

2) I'm sure these diverse members have some level of intellect. Wonder how do they sustain one another and motivate one another if there is no miracle healings, blessings etc etc. In fact those testimonies that they shared weren't testimonies to me at all.

OK, not important to answer above if you choose not too as it ain't important anyway.

 

[HoneyBare]

No problem at all. I am more than willing to answer your questions. No, Mormons don't believe in salvation. Well, I should say that their "salvation" I guess is how far up the latter they are in the church, and if they have obeyed all the 10 Commandments, how much work they have don, etc. I am not sure what you mean by an alter call, but if I have not heard of that, then they must not have that.

If you are a Mormon man, married, then you are a priest of the Melchizidek order, and you can give blessings to people by the laying on of hands. Also, they pray for the sick and they are occasionally healed.

About the intellegent people, if you have been raised Mormon, and this is all you know, then intellegent or not, you are pretty deeply stuck. If you left the church, you would be shunned by the family and all your friends. So, the best thing is to stay. There are more suicides in Salt Lake City than in any city in the U.S. I've heard, for that reason.

As far as testimonies go, again that is the only way they know how to testify, so they repeat the only thing they know. Most converts quit when they get deeper into the church. But they don't care. They are not concerned about "sinners" as much as they are keeping their young active in the church. So the young missionaries are kept active by becoming a missionary for two years so that they can be ingrained more by their repetitious beliefs. They are pretty sheltered and not allowed to read anything nonMormon and most of them fear doing so, because the evil spirit works in them if they try. I honestly don't know of any other way they can justify staying in the church. The bad spirit keeps them in line. And, believe me, it is very strong and convincing. There is so much more, but if you google exmormons, you will find more information. I'm glad you have an inquisitive mind. That's what got me out, and into the Light.

 

[Boanerges]

Thanks sis, you are a real blessing.

 

[Alan C]

mormoms

I dion't know a lot about what they believe. A while back I met one in town and before I realised it she had invited her husband and her self around to our house. When they arrived my wife and I shared our testemony with them and then gave them chance to talk about their faith.
They seemed to agree with us until they started to talk about the book of Mormon which they add to the Bible. After a short time it became so apparant that to believe what they believed was weird and Joseph Smith was either deluded or a mad man to write such things.
They are very friendly and had offered help to my friend when she was decorating her house but they do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son Of God therefore using the guide line in James are a sect.

 

[TimothyRBerman]

Hope this is nothing sensitive, otherwise, pse delete.

2 weeks ago I have to worked on a Sunday, hence didn't attend my my church which is charismatic. After my lunch, I just popped over to a church which is across my work place which incidentally have a afternoon service- The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. I didn't know the denimination is Mormom until I sat down and asked the one sitting besides me. I look forward to the preaching but there wasn't any sermon at all. The guy besides me said its not their practice to have preachers preaching from the pulpit, but instead the learning is from breaking up into various groups and learn from each other thru' individual assigned learders. So for almost an hour sitting on the pew, there's only testimonies read from volunteers on stage and many a times they mentioned they are so grateful to the teachings from the "Book of Mormom".

My questions;

1) Do they believed in Jesus Christ and He has died for their sin?

Not only do Latter-day Saint Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, but that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God. A statement that Peter himself confessed when the Lord asked his disciples "whom do ye say that I am?" Secondly, Latter-day saints believe and accept the full concept of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is similiar to that of the Christian understanding, but the difference is that Christians view the Cross where Christ was Crucified as the Beginning and end of Christ's suffering and conquering of Sin. Yet, what tends to get forgotten is that Christ's entire mission led up to the cross, and beyond that. This mission was not merely to die on a cross as a redemptive act of mercy and grace. The entire mission of Jesus Christ was to ultimately provide the sacrifice of a sin offering, breaking the chains of sin that have held men in captivity, as well as breaking the bondage of death. Essentially, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ came to save mankind from both sin and death. This is well evidenced in the New Testament text itself.

2) Why they are so sure the words from 'The Book of Mormons" are God's inspired?

Pardon me if this topic is not appropriate as I'm new to this forum and I may have overstep a sensitive issue.

The eighth article of faith says this: We Believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be God's word as well. This is not an exact quote, but of a paraphrase.

What this does not mean is that the Bible is inferior to the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon compliments the bible because the entire premise of the Book of Mormon is about the redemption that Christ brings about to fallen mankind. It is about the Salvation of man from sin and death that the Book of Mormon harmonizes with the Bible.

When you think about it, the Old Testament (Testament meaning Covenant) refers to the Old Law, the Covenant YHWH made with Ancient Israel, and the hope of a coming messiah.

The New Testament (Testament meaning Covenant) describes the fulfillment of that which was spoken of in the Old Covenant as to the coming forth of a redeemer to save mankind from sin and death, establishing the kingdom, and the salvation by which men are to be saved. Thus, the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

With this, the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ, (Testament meaning Covenant) in that it is another Covenant as to exactly how the New Covenant operates under regarding the salvation of mankind from sin and death. This is why the Book of Mormon is called the "Fulness of the Everlasting Gospel" because the everlasting gospel is the coming forth of a redeemer to mankind and providing the means by which men are saved from their sins and death. The two conditions that were brought about by adam's transgression within the Garden of Eden.

 

[HoneyBare]

Sorry, friend, but none of what you said sounds like anything I was taught in my classes when I was an investigator of the church. In fact, when I gave a cross necklace to a woman friend in the church, she told me they do not wear crosses, nor have pictures of them hanging in their homes. I thought this strange, and not until I surrendered my life to Christ and asked Him to be Lord of my life, did I recall this as a big problem for me, and should raise a red flag to anyone investigating.

What you just stated in your post must be what you are told to say to non-Mormons. What I would especially point out is where you say that "We Believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be God's word as well. No, if you were to be truthful, my friend, you would tell them that the Bom is to be taken word for word, and you believe that the Holy Bible has many errors because you say it was written by man, whereas the Bom was written by God, using Joseph Smith's hand.

But then, since I am now an apostate, I've watched the LDS church begin to change . . . again. I have old copies of some original books, even an old Bom, and it's interesting to note the changes in the orig ones and the present day Bom. I was once told by a missionary, that you believe it's ok to lie, as long as it brings someone to the knowledge of the truth - your truth. Now does that make any sense? Lying so that they will be brought to know the "truth!"

If you would stop lying to yourselves, you would turn around and start investigating what the Word of God really says, and that is anyone who changes the words of this Book, will be condemned. I am sorry that you have fallen into the trap of believing the lies the church has told you, because I now know that the Truth has set me free.

Not only do Latter-day Saint Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, but that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God. A statement that Peter himself confessed when the Lord asked his disciples "whom do ye say that I am?" Secondly, Latter-day saints believe and accept the full concept of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is similiar to that of the Christian understanding, but the difference is that Christians view the Cross where Christ was Crucified as the Beginning and end of Christ's suffering and conquering of Sin. Yet, what tends to get forgotten is that Christ's entire mission led up to the cross, and beyond that. This mission was not merely to die on a cross as a redemptive act of mercy and grace. The entire mission of Jesus Christ was to ultimately provide the sacrifice of a sin offering, breaking the chains of sin that have held men in captivity, as well as breaking the bondage of death. Essentially, Latter-day Saints believe that Christ came to save mankind from both sin and death. This is well evidenced in the New Testament text itself.

The eighth article of faith says this: We Believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be God's word as well. This is not an exact quote, but of a paraphrase.

What this does not mean is that the Bible is inferior to the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon compliments the bible because the entire premise of the Book of Mormon is about the redemption that Christ brings about to fallen mankind. It is about the Salvation of man from sin and death that the Book of Mormon harmonizes with the Bible.

When you think about it, the Old Testament (Testament meaning Covenant) refers to the Old Law, the Covenant YHWH made with Ancient Israel, and the hope of a coming messiah.

The New Testament (Testament meaning Covenant) describes the fulfillment of that which was spoken of in the Old Covenant as to the coming forth of a redeemer to save mankind from sin and death, establishing the kingdom, and the salvation by which men are to be saved. Thus, the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

With this, the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ, (Testament meaning Covenant) in that it is another Covenant as to exactly how the New Covenant operates under regarding the salvation of mankind from sin and death. This is why the Book of Mormon is called the "Fulness of the Everlasting Gospel" because the everlasting gospel is the coming forth of a redeemer to mankind and providing the means by which men are saved from their sins and death. The two conditions that were brought about by adam's transgression within the Garden of Eden.

 

[divine]

The eighth article of faith says this: We Believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be God's word as well. This is not an exact quote, but of a paraphrase.

What this does not mean is that the Bible is inferior to the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon compliments the bible because the entire premise of the Book of Mormon is about the redemption that Christ brings about to fallen mankind. It is about the Salvation of man from sin and death that the Book of Mormon harmonizes with the Bible.

Hi Tim,
My take:

Its not a matter whether the BOM is superior, inferior or complimenting the bible. If its not God's inspired, period. We cannot add or subtract anything from/to the bible.

I do not know who this Joseph Smith is but my short 45min session in the church has him praised all over by various members. They should be praising Jesus. If it is JS personal perception in which the BOM was written, you should be asking yourself the authencity of his "story".
In 1 Cor 1;25 the foolishness of God is wiser than men.

In fact the redemption of Christ was already mentioned all over in the old and new of the bible. The first 5 books of the bible is about creation, but the rest are actually describing about His coming to redeem us. We don't need another book to tell us about redemption, Its already in the bible.

The bible never, never, never contradicts itself between the old and the new. The old is the new concealed, the new is the old revealed. There should be no other books besides the bible adds to compliment it.

 

[Boanerges]

What does matter is this; the bom contradicts scripture and itself.

 

[TimothyRBerman]

Sorry, friend, but none of what you said sounds like anything I was taught in my classes when I was an investigator of the church. In fact, when I gave a cross necklace to a woman friend in the church, she told me they do not wear crosses, nor have pictures of them hanging in their homes. I thought this strange, and not until I surrendered my life to Christ and asked Him to be Lord of my life, did I recall this as a big problem for me, and should raise a red flag to anyone investigating.

Unfortunately, when one does not actually research something before they say something that is not based on obvious facts, they tend to show themselves to be of a foolish mindset. Do you actually know that if you go back to Colonial America, Christians of that time actually forbade the wearing of the Cross, and that none of the churches then had crosses? Reason for this is because they viewed the Cross as a symbol of Catholicism and therefore viewed it as a symbol that they did not want to identify with:

Reed also uses the word "contempt" for how Protestants feel about the cross -- 19th-century Protestants, that is. It turns out that cross "aversion" was a Protestant pastime in times past. Its source was anti-Catholicism. Reed quoted historian Ryan K. Smith, who said that from 1820 to 1850 the number of Catholics in the United States grew from about 195,000 members to 1.75 million members, the largest religious body in the nation. And Catholics used crosses.

And so the Protestants didn't. "To Protestant Americans, the cross was perceived to be a strictly Catholic symbol," Reed said.

In fact, if you were to go to Mormon Times, and see the article - Sunstone speaker attempts to explain LDS 'aversion' to cross, by Michael de Groote, you will find that Early Mormon's actually used Crosses in their jewelry, a Cross was proposed to be placed at Ensign Peak to remember some of the Mormon Pioneers, and two actual temples are described to have built in a cross like shape.

However, this does not mean that the LDS believers came to accept the "aversion of the cross" from those of their contemporary protestant faith. This was developed later. No matter, the fact that one group of people not accepting a symbol does not logically imply they deny the very aspect and interpretation of that symbol. And, understandably so, there are some members of the LDS Faith who would weakly argue and reason that they would not wear a gun around their neck as a reminder of the death of their loved one. Both positions have to understand what is it about the cross as a symbol that has any significance? In fact, I could argue that the cross has become more of a symbol of Idolatry in the way some Christian believers worship it rather than Christ himself.

No matter, the fact and reality remains that Christ is not on the cross but is resurrected and glorified. It is his life, his death, burial and resurrection that has more significance over the symbol of his death.

What you just stated in your post must be what you are told to say to non-Mormons. What I would especially point out is where you say that "We Believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly. We believe the Book of Mormon to be God's word as well. No, if you were to be truthful, my friend, you would tell them that the Bom is to be taken word for word, and you believe that the Holy Bible has many errors because you say it was written by man, whereas the Bom was written by God, using Joseph Smith's hand.

Again, either you lack understanding in modern Textual Criticism of the Bible, or have not given yourself over to the study of the Old and New Testament Texts.

Do we have the autographs of the Epistles of Paul? No, neither do we have the autographs of the original gospels. Also, Paul's epistles date closer to the time of Christ rather than the Gospel. Furthermore, majority of these manuscripts have quite a bit of variants within each copies of copies. One of the most common one's is that of the Long Ending of the Gospel of Mark. Early manuscripts have Mark 16:1-8, while the disputed long ending of verses 9-20 are in later manuscripts as an attempt to add to the gospel.

Another passage that is scholarly shown to be an attempt to change is that of Dueteronomy 32:8-9, the Masoretic Text significantly changes this passage from the original that has been discovered to be different in the LXX (septuagint) and early Tanak versions of the Old Testament.

Third, one has to understand the nature prior to the official canonization of the Bible and after the canonization. Prior to the canonization, the Bible (both old and new) held approximately 80 books, rather than the current 66 books. When it came to the canonization of the Bible as to what was to be officially called scripture, Revelation was heavily disputed as to being part of the canon and barely made it into the canon of scripture. This based on the voting of what men decided to be the word of God and what was not considered to be the word of God.

In fact, if you look at the NIV and the other Translations, their are specific passages of scriptures removed from the NIV Translation than that of the King James Version. This is based on the presumed understanding of the manuscripts used to translate the NIV.

So, there are just as much changes within the Biblical text than there are within the Book of Mormon. From this standpoint, I say that the bible is errant in its proper context because of these errors, however it is inerrant in its message over all.

But then, since I am now an apostate, I've watched the LDS church begin to change . . . again. I have old copies of some original books, even an old Bom, and it's interesting to note the changes in the orig ones and the present day Bom. I was once told by a missionary, that you believe it's ok to lie, as long as it brings someone to the knowledge of the truth - your truth. Now does that make any sense? Lying so that they will be brought to know the "truth!"

If you would stop lying to yourselves, you would turn around and start investigating what the Word of God really says, and that is anyone who changes the words of this Book, will be condemned. I am sorry that you have fallen into the trap of believing the lies the church has told you, because I now know that the Truth has set me free.

I actually find this rather funny. Just because you perceived that someone told you that it is okay to lie does not logically mean that lying is okay. If that were true, then that missionary was not being honest at all. Yet, to use this as a logical argument is very fallacious and unethical.

Regarding adding to the Bible, this again shows a sense of ignorance on your part and any person who uses this line of reason.

Seriously think about it. What scriptures were available when Paul counsels Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says that all scripture is given....Can you empirically prove that the First Century Christians had the New testament as we have it today? No, you can't. And therefore, the argument that nothing can be added to the Bible is a very erroneous statement. Simply put, one can logically argue and reason that if we are not to add to the Scriptures, then modern Christianity is at fault for this as well because they have added to the scriptures by adopting an affinity to the New Testament and placing the New Testament alongside the Old Testament. Why? Again, history shows that the only set of scriptures available to the First Century Christians were the Old Testament. Furthermore, there was no such thing as "The Bible" in the First Century.

Finally, regarding your presumptuous statement of me, you don't know me and therefore would rather use a weak ad hominem argument rather than actually look at the topic at hand.

The only person that is most likely lying to themselves is the one who is not being honest in their investigation and presentation of facts. Opinions are not facts, they are merely opinions, and this is the context of your response. However, if you dispute the facts presented here, then the burden of proof falls onto you to disprove these facts I have presented to you.

 

[TimothyRBerman]

Hi Tim,
My take:

Its not a matter whether the BOM is superior, inferior or complimenting the bible. If its not God's inspired, period. We cannot add or subtract anything from/to the bible.

I do not know who this Joseph Smith is but my short 45min session in the church has him praised all over by various members. They should be praising Jesus. If it is JS personal perception in which the BOM was written, you should be asking yourself the authencity of his "story".
In 1 Cor 1;25 the foolishness of God is wiser than men.

In fact the redemption of Christ was already mentioned all over in the old and new of the bible. The first 5 books of the bible is about creation, but the rest are actually describing about His coming to redeem us. We don't need another book to tell us about redemption, Its already in the bible.

The bible never, never, never contradicts itself between the old and the new. The old is the new concealed, the new is the old revealed. There should be no other books besides the bible adds to compliment it.

This is actually from your own personal observation. However, Show me in the First Century of Christianity that they had a Bible as we would have it today?

Again, the false premise that the Bible is the End all be all of everything is very false. Why? Because it denies divine revelation. Carefully read the dialog between Jesus Christ and Peter.

Christ asks a question: Who do you say that I am?

Peter answers question: You are the Christ, Son of the Living God.

Christ blesses Peter and pronounces the very foundation that His Church would be built upon.

If you carefully read the context, Christ first says that Peter did not come to know who Christ is by studying, by the philosophies of man, by human knowledge as we would understand, but as it is revealed by the Father unto the hearts of the Children of Men. In this context, Christ then stated that because of this, His church would be built upon the Revelation of who He is, not the understanding and various philosophies of who people think he is.

The fact is, the position modern Evangelicals take is a "Closed Canon" of scripture because they feel that God can't reveal anything outside of the Bible. Yet, when in reality, much of the New Testament was a direct result of Divine Revelation and Inspiration. An account of teaching, instruction, and testimony as to the reality of Christ. Who are you to say that God can't speak outside the Biblical Text? Who are you to limit God's word to just the Bible? You have no authority to say this. And those who do attempt to justify this, do so on very false pretense and false argumentation because they don't understand the exact nature and history of how God works in the lives and hearts of mankind.

In fact, there are many books talked about in the Bible that are no longer accounted for. The Book of Gad, The Book of the Law that was discovered, The Book of Enoch that Jude quotes from and has historically been proven to be part of the original canon of scripture before the 66 book canonization. And, various acceptance of 80 plus books of the Bible prior to men coming together and determining for themselves which books to include as the word of God and which books were not to be included as the word of God, all based on man's perception and understanding.

 

[TimothyRBerman]

What does matter is this; the bom contradicts scripture and itself.

1. How does it contradict scripture?

2. How does it contradict itself?

I could say the same thing of the Bible. In fact, it is the very same argument that Atheists use against the Bible toward Christians. Very ironic isn't it? That you would use the same argument against the Book of Mormon that is used to justify why the Bible could not be the word of God and that it is just a book full of myths and legends and that it contradicts itself. Why would you attempt to use an Atheistic argument?

 

[TimothyRBerman]

they do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son Of God therefore using the guide line in James are a sect.

Again, very false. Latter-day Saint Christians actually believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

 

[Boanerges]

First - the Book of Mormon is not scripture as God does not contradict Himself and the BOM is one large contradiction even of itself:
Major Contradictions in Mormonism

(plus some minor ones)

Compiled by Richard Packham

Why are contradictions important?

Contradictions are a mark of falseness. If two statements contradict each other, then one of them must be false. If both statements come from the same person, then the suspicion must arise that the person is lying (or at least grossly mistaken) in one of them, or perhaps both. If both of the contradictory statements are supposed to be from God, or from God's spokesman (a prophet or a scripture) then we are justified in considering this supposed spokesman to be fraudulent, since God is not supposed to lie or to make contradictory statements.

"For I am the Lord, I change not;..." - Malachi 3:6 "God is not a man, that he should lie;.. hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Num 23:19
"...with [God] is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." - James 1:17 (see also BoM Morm 9:9, Mosiah 2:22, Alma 7:20)
​

Mormon leaders insist that there are no contradictions in Mormonism. Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth president of the church, said:

If his [Joseph Smith's] claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. - Doctrines of Salvation 1:188-189​

How religious apologists deal with contradictions

Contradictions do not seem to bother religious apologists, since they have developed very clever ways of dealing with them, primarily by explaining them away with various excuses:

• One of the statements only appears to contradict the other; with the proper spirit and the proper interpretation (usually by the prophet himself, or by a later prophet), and by assigning different (special) meanings to some of the words, the contradiction disappears;
• One of the statements was not intended to be taken literally (this is a variation on the previous excuse);
• The statement the apologist likes best takes precedence over the other one, because:
  • It was made earlier in time and thus has seniority;
  • It was made later in time and thus supersedes the prior one;
  • The other statement was made only to a limited, special audience at a limited time, and thus only applies to them;
• One of the statements is not accurately recorded; the prophet never really said that;
• The prophet was not speaking as a prophet when making the apparently contradictory statement - he was merely expressing his personal (and therefore human and error-prone) opinion;
• This is one of the Great Mysteries, which we will understand in God's own due time. Such mysteries can only make us pause in humility and in admiration of God's wisdom, since only He is capable of understanding them.
• As a last resort, the apologist simply ignores one of them.

Some Contradictions in Mormon Scripture, Teachings and Doctrine

This listing is by no means complete. It includes only those contradictions which are most difficult for Mormons to explain satisfactorily (except to a faithful and all-accepting fellow Mormon who desperately wants an explanation in order to protect his faith). It generally does not include contradictions with Bible passages, since Mormons consider the Bible to have many translation errors, and since the Bible itself is often ambiguous and subject to varying interpretations.

Abbreviations used:

BoM: Book of Mormon
D&C: Doctrine and Covenants
PoGP: Pearl of Great Price
BoA: Book of Abraham
LoF: Lectures on Faith (until 1921 part of D&C)
HoC: History of the Church
JoD: Journal of Discourses
TJS: Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith
JST Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible ("Inspired Version")
Ensign: Ensign Magazine, official publication of the church
​

[/SIZE]

1. What is God's attitude toward David and Solomon having more than one wife? Notice that it is not a question of whether different people at different times might be commanded or permitted or forbidden to practice polygamy; it has only to do with God's view of specific acts of polygamy. And remember that God is unchanging! (BoM, 3 Nephi 24:6)
   • BoM, Jacob 2:24 says that God considered David's and Solomon's polygamy as "abominable before me." (See also Jacob 1:15, 3:5.) BUT:
   • At D&C 132:38-39 God says that David and Solomon did not sin in having more than one wife, and David's wives were "given unto him of me." At 2 Samuel 12:7-8 God says, through the prophet Nathan, that David's wives were given to him by God.
2. Does God dwell in man's heart?
   • BoM, Alma 34:36 says that "the Lord" dwells in the hearts of the righteous. BUT:
   • D&C 130:3 says that the "idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart" is false. (D&C 130:22 says that it is the Holy Ghost that "dwell in us")
     
   
   
   [*] Does God change?
   
   • BoM Moroni 8:18, Mormon 9:9 say no:
     "...God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing." (Morm 9:9)​
   • D&C 20:17 says no:
     "...there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God..."​
     BUT:
   • Joseph Smith taught that God was once a human being like us, and became God:
     "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us..." (from the "King Follett Discourse" TJS 342-343, also JoD 6:3-4)​
   • Brigham Young confirmed this:
     "He [God] is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being." (JoD 7:333):​
   
   [*] Does God the Father have a body of flesh and bones?
   
   • D&C 130:22 says yes: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's; the Son also...". BUT:
   • D&C 38:1-7 says that Jesus is invisible: "I am in your midst and ye cannot see me." BUT:
   • LoF, Lecture Fifth, says that the Godhead consists of two personages, God the Father and God the Son, "the Father being a personage of spirit...[and] the Son,... a personage of tabernacle... and is called the Son because of the flesh..." The Son possesses "the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit... and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one..." [added emphasis] Alma 18:26-28 says God is a spirit, confirming John 4:24 ("God is a Spirit").
     The Mormons try to explain this by saying that of course God is a spirit, we all are "spirit" because we have a spirit. And so does God. However, in the LoF passage, the intent is clearly to differentiate between the Father and the Son, and the difference given is that the Son is "of the flesh." Apostle Bruce R. McConkie says that John 4:24 is mistranslated (Mormon Doctrine, "God As A Spirit"), perhaps because in Joseph Smith's "Inspired Verson" of the Bible, that passage is omitted. He says nothing about the translation of the passage in Alma. One must wonder how a passage which is mistranslated in the King James Version appears in the very same words in the Book of Mormon, which was supposedly translated by divine power.
     ​
   
   [*] Is there more than one God?
   
   • BoM Alma 11:26-29 says there is only one God. Also D&C 20:19, PoGP Moses 1:6, as well as many Bible passages, such as Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:6, to name only a few. BUT
   • PoGP Abraham 4:27 refers to "the Gods" as does D&C 132:37. Orson Pratt's statement is typical of Mormon belief:
     If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds. - JoD 2:345​
   
   [*] Are God The Father and God The Son separate personages?
   
   • D&C 130:22, PoGP JS-Hist 1:17ff (Smith's "First Vision"), LoF 5 say yes (see previous item). BUT:
   • BoM Mosiah 15:1ff says they are the same.
     BoM Ether 3:14 God says: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son."
     Other passages in the first edition of the BoM (1830) said they are the same, but the text was changed in later editions to indicate otherwise, for example:
     BoM, 1830 edition:
     1 Nephi 11:21: "And the angel said unto me: Behold, the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"
     1 Nephi 13:40: "...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world..."​
   In present editions, the words "the Son of" have been inserted before "the Eternal Father" in these (and similar) passages.
   1 Nephi 19:11 says that the "God of Abraham" was Jesus who was "lifted up [and crucified]"
   [*] Can one who does not hold the Priesthood see the "face of God"?
   
   • D&C 84:21-22 (given September 1832) says no:
     "...without the ordinances thereof [i.e. of the priesthood], and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."​
     BUT:
   • In Joseph Smith's story of his "First Vision" (PoGP JS-Hist 1:17ff, written about 1838), he says that he saw two personages (one of whom he interpreted to be God the Father) in 1820. There is considerable dispute about the exact dates when the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were restored, but the earliest dates claimed are 1829-1830.
   
   [*]Can the temple ordinances be changed?
   
   • Joseph Smith said no:
     "The order of the House of God has been and ever will be the same, even after Christ comes, and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same;..." (TJS p 91)​
     "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed." (TJS p 308)​
     "...the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing." (TJS p.169)​
     See also Isaiah 24:5, Malachi 3:7, condemning those who change God's ordinances
     BUT:
     The Mormon church leaders have made numerous fundamental changes in the temple ordinances:
     • about 1912 - eliminated the "Oath of Vengeance"
     • in the 1930s - softened the wording of the penalties
     • in the 1960s - changed the garment pattern to be worn in the temple
     • 1990 - removed the penalties entirely, changed the Second Sign of the Melchizedek Priesthood, removed the Five Points of Fellowship, changed the Law of Obedience for women
     • 2005 - reduced the actual washing and anointing to a symbolic daubing on the forehead
     • Hundreds of minor changes have also been made over the years.
   
   [*] Are "Elohim" and "Jehovah (Hebrew: 'YHWH')" different or the same?
   
   • In a doctrinal statement by the Mormon First Presidency "The Father and the Son" (cited by Mormon theologian James Talmage in his The Articles of Faith, pp. 465ff, it states that "Elohim" refers to God the Father, and "Jehovah" refers to God the Son. This distinction is also portrayed in the Mormon temple ritual, the "endowment," where "Elohim" gives instructions to "Jehovah and Michael" and sends them off to carry them out, which they do.
     BUT:
   • Exodus 6:2 says, translated literally from Hebrew: "And Elohim spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am YHWH [Jehovah]." The Hebrew word "Elohim" means "God" and is translated in most Bibles by "God," whereas "YHWH" - as this passage indicates, is the sacred name of God, and is translated in most English Bibles as "the LORD". In the Old Testament the terms are almost interchangeable, and frequently one version of an Old Testament story refers to the Deity as "Elohim" ("God") and another version of the same story uses the term "YHWH" ("the LORD"). There are hundreds of such examples (it was the different terms used in Hebrew for "God" that first led scholars to surmise that the first five books of the Old Testament are from differing traditions, one that called God "Elohim", and another that called him "YHWH". Here are just a few examples:
     In the Flood story, God is referred to as "Elohim" in Gen 6:9-22; 7:9, 16; 8:1, 15. But God - apparently the same God - is called "YHWH (Jehovah)" in 6:5-7; 7:1-5, 16; 8:20. In God's dealings with Abraham, God is called "Elohim" in Genesis 17, but "YHWH" in Genesis 18. It is clear that these are not two different personages, but just one God, referred to by two different terms.
     Hundreds of other examples could be cited. (See any analytical concordance under "God" and "Lord" for a complete listing.)
     ​
   
   [*] Are Adam and Michael the same personages, or different?
   
   • D&C 27:11 (and the Endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple) says they are the same. BUT:
   • In a vision which JS recorded in his diary for Jan 21, 1836, he "saw father Adam and Abraham and Michael...", naming them as separate personages. (This vision was recently included in the D&C as section 137, but the reference to Michael was deleted.)
   
   [*] Is Adam the same personage as God the Father?
   
   • Brigham Young on numerous occasions taught this doctrine, which came to be known as the "Adam-God" doctrine.
     Apostle Bruce R. McConkie admitted that this doctrine was taught by Brigham Young in a private letter: "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him [i.e. that Adam is God]. "
     The present prophet Gordon B. Hinckley admitted that Brigham Young had taught this doctrine in an interview with the New Yorker magazine (January 21, 2002, p. 44)
     BUT:
   • Church authorities in recent decades have repeatedly said that Adam is not God the Father. McConkie, in the letter cited above, referred to the "utter absurdity of this doctrine" and called it "totally false," saying that "This [doctrine]... is not true. He [Brigham Young] expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." See also Doctrines of Salvation 1:96-106, by Joseph Fielding Smith, later president of the church.
   
   [*] How was Jesus conceived?
   
   • BoM Alma 7:10 prophesies that Christ would be born of Mary, "...she being a virgin... who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost,..." BoM 1 Nephi 11, narrates a vision of Nephi. He sees the virgin Mary (v. 15-18), and then he "beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit;" (v. 19) and after a time he sees her "bearing a child in her arms" (v. 20)
     BUT:
   • Brigham Young's stated: "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was NOT begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.... Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (JoD 1:50-51) "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He ...was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD 8:115)
     "The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husabnd... That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father." (JoD 11:268)
     Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote: "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966 ed, 546-547)
     "He [Jesus] is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is that simple." (The Promised Messiah, pp 467-468).
   
   [*] What happens to those who teach false doctrine?
   
   • BoM 2 Ne 28:15 says teachers of false doctrine will go to hell: "...all those who preach false doctrines,.., wo, wo, wo, be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" Joseph Fielding Smith (apostle, later president of the church) says: "There is no greater crime in all the world than to teach false doctrines.." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:34
     BUT:
   • Apostle McConkie says that Brigham Young will go to the Celestial Kingdom, even though he taught false doctrine (see previous item): "He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation..." (cited letter). When confronted with false teachings of earlier prophets, Mormons usually respond by saying that even prophets make mistakes, no one is perfect.
   
   [*] Can a revelation contradict or rescind an earlier revelation?
   
   • Joseph Smith said no: one of the tests of a false revelation is that it contradicts an earlier revelation. (TJS p 215)
     BUT:
   • Apostle Ezra Taft Benson, later president of the church, said in his 1980 sermon "Forteen Fundamentals" said:
     "Third: The Living Prophet is mor important to us than a dead prophet... Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence."​
   • Many earlier revelations have been rescinded or withdrawn or otherwise contradicted by later "revelations". Examples:
     • Polygamy, the "New and Everlasting Covenant" (D&C 132) was done away with by a later revelation (D&C OD-1).
     • The United Order (or Order of Enoch) was to be "everlasting" (D&C 82:20, 104:1), but done away with by a later revelation (D&C 104).
     • Brigham Young's revelation that Adam is the God and Father is now repudiated by the church.
   
   [*] Who created the world?
   
   • PoGP Moses 2 says "I, God [created everything]..." (see also BoM 2 Nephi 2:14, Jacob 4:9, Alma 18:26-32). BUT:
   • PoGP Abraham 4 says "they (the Gods) [created everything]".
   
   [*] What happens to people who die before having had a chance to hear the gospel?
   
   • D&C 137:7-8 says they will go to the celestial kingdom. BUT:
   • D&C 76:71-78 says they will go only to the terrestrial kingdom (a lower kingdom than the celestial). BUT:
   • D&C 128 and 138 outline the Mormon "work for the dead," one of the principal purposes of the Mormon temples, to enable all the dead who repent (after death) to attain the celestial kingdom. BUT:
   • BoM Alma 34:32-35 says that those who do not repent before death are eternally lost: "...that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world... ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his,... and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked." (See also 2 Ne 9:38 and Mosiah 2:36-39)
     In spite of this clear language, Mormons have devoted much effort to "doing temple work" for thousands of unsavory historical figures such as Adolf Hitler.​
   
   [*] What happens in heaven to children who die before reaching adulthood?
   
   • Joseph Fielding Smith says that those who die as children will be resurrected with bodies "the same size as it was when the child died. It will then grow after the resurrection to conform to the size of the spirit." Doctrines of Salvation, 2:56. BUT:
   • Joseph Smith said: "But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead.... It will never grow: it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth,... with not one cubit added to their stature." JoD 6:10 (the "King Follett Discourse")
   
   [*] Is murder a forgivable sin?
   
   • BoM 3 Nephi 30:2, Alma 39:6 (also the Bible at Matthew 12:31, Jeremiah 33:8) say that murder is forgivable.Joseph Smith said: "All sins, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come,... unless he has committed that unpardonable sin [the sin against the Holy Ghost]..." JoD 6:8 (the "King Follett Discourse")
     BUT:
   • D&C 42:18 says murder is not forgivable. Joseph Smith said: "A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have forgiveness... They [can] not be baptized for the remission of sins for they [have] shed innocent blood." TJS 339
   
   [*] Where was the Garden of Eden located?
   
   • D&C 116 says it was located at "Adam-ondi-Ahman", near Spring Hill, Missouri. (See also D&C 78:15, 107:53-57, HoC 3:35). BUT:
   • PoGP (Moses 3:10-15, corresponding to Joseph Smith's "Inspired" translation of Genesis 2:10-15) says it was located in the vicinity of Assyria and Ethiopia and the Euphrates River.
     Comment: Mormons try to explain this by suggesting that those Biblical names were also used in Adam's day to refer to areas and rivers in ancient Missouri. This argument overlooks the fact that the author of Genesis (or the inspired "Book of Moses" - who was the biblical Moses, according to Mormon doctrine) was writing for an audience who knew those names only as designations in the Old World, and would have understood them as such.[/SIZE]​
   
   [*] What materials did Nephi have for building his temple?
   
   • BoM 2 Ne 5:15 says supplies were abundant: "...all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance." BUT:
   • BoM 2 Ne 5:16 says they were not abundant: "...save it [the temple] were not built of so many precious things, for they were not to be found upon the land.