Television ads encouraging people to read the Book of Mormon describe it as “Another testament of Jesus Christ”. Is this description correct?
Well, the BoM does have Jesus in it. On the other hand, no Christian outside the LDS Church would call it a testament.
If and only if you believe it is, and that’s probably the most definitive answer you’ll get.
tracer & ultrafilter hit the nail on the head. Those of us who believe it to be such a testament say that it is such a testament. Those of us who don’t, don’t. Simple as that.
Although this may not be the ultimate, official Catholic position, it does correspond closely to other information I’ve heard from nuns and priests:
"When dealing with Mormon missionaries, remember that all the evidence is in favor of the claims of the Catholic Church. If you want to watch their sails go slack quickly, ask the missionaries to produce any historical proof to support their claim that in the early centuries the Church was Mormon. They can’t do it because there is no such evidence.
The Book of Mormon itself suffers the same fate when it comes to its own historical support. In a word, it hasn’t got any."
I think Astro is curious as to exactly what the content of the Book of Morman is. Essentially, It claims that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection and spread the gospel to Native Americans. This story was dictated to John Smith by an Angel. Whether you believe this or not is a matter of faith.
The Catholic position is not the be-all/ end-all, it is just the Catholic position. To talk about “evidence” when it comes to religion is kind of silly, since faith is beyond proof or disproof (It’s not like there’s a ton of evidence to support the historicity of the canonical gospels either)
Er, that would be Joseph Smith, and it wasn’t dictated to him (though he dictated the text to a scribe), but otherwise that is pretty correct. The Book of Mormon claims to be the record of a group of people living somewhere on the American continent. It contains prophecies of Jesus Christ, a good chunk of Isaiah, and the actual ministry of Christ to the people after the Resurrection. And a whole lot of war.
Here is the title page, which has a summary of what it is supposed to be.
Here is the introduction, which is easier to grasp.
Enjoy!
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents
That’s the full text of the Book of Mormon that you can buy in LDS bookstores anywhere. Some background is available in the title page, introduction, testimonies of witnesses, and the brief explanation.
To quote from the title page:
Take a look and judge for yourself whether it’s a testament or not.
(erp–genie beat me to some of this…oh well, it’s not complete overlap)
More generic subquestion: what is a testament? What does that mean? Somehow, through all my inquiries into religion over the past year or so, I never had found out what that really means. This isn’t rhetorical. I mean, what makes the New Testament of the bible a “testament”?
Thanks Genie, of COURSE it’s JOSEPH Smith. [Diogenes smacks himself soundly in the forehead] I KNEW that I swear, it’s just late and I’m tired, but still, what a boneheaded error. Thanks for the links. I was just going off the top of my obviously shaky memory and I guess I oversimplified.
I quoted the Catholic position because I didn’t care to share my views. I’ve read similar statements about “The Book of Mormon” from official Protestant publications. I haven’t read what Islam thinks about “The Book of Mormon,” but it isn’t hard to guess.
As for simply being a matter of faith, it’s important to note that the faith Jews/Christians/Muslims place in their most sacred books is based on the historical stature of those writings–having passed the test of time, as it were. They all recognize the Old Testament as spiritually valid. “The Book of Mormon” has been constantly and enormously revised since the day it was written. The “matter of faith” involved is faith in the LDS leaders.
This is something that Jews, Christians and Muslims–to the best of my knowledge–are not allowed to accept.
What do you mean by “historical stature,” Partly? Just that they are old? The Hebrew Bible and NT are certainly not any more VERIFIABLE in any literal historical sense than the BoM.
The BoM has been revised? Well so what, The Hebrew Bible and NT also underwent plenty of revisions and updates. They did not just come out of a box in their current form.
As to the credibility of LDS leaders, well is there any MORE reason to trust the leaders of any other church? (Do I really have to point out the current Catholic Priest scandals?)
You used the phrase “spiritually valid.” Well, the Book of Mormon is just as spiritually valid to LDS as the Bible. This is really sort of a tautology anyway (If I believe it, that makes it “valid”) ALL religious texts are spiritually valid to the people who believe them and invalid to people who don’t. It doesn’t matter what the Catholic position is w/regards to the “validity” of the BoM. It only matters what the LDS position is.
BTW I’m not sure what you mean that Christians etc. are “not allowed to accept.” It sounds like you’re referring to “faith in LDS leaders.” Do you mean faith in human leaders in general, this sounds inconsistent with the so-called “infallibility” of the pope. Please explicate.
We have people here are are real experts in the language and I’m not. So I’ll put up a first try for them to shoot at, emend, modify or whatever.
“Testament” is basically an expression of conviction. It comes from the same root as “testimony” which is derived from the Latin word for “witness.” So, I think, in this case “testament” means a statement of events or beliefs by someone who presents them as true.
Catholic priests are not invited to rewrite the Bible. The Pope isn’t invited to rewrite the Bible. So if we get bad priests, or a Pope who is in some respect less than divinely inspired, it doesn’t affect the Bible. The same cannot be said for “The Book of Mormon”.
The BoM wasn’t just revised at a few junctures, it is constantly revised. As in: the LDS plan to change it in the future. (I take it you aren’t familiar with it, or its process of development?)
And yes I meant that Christians (again, as far as I know) are not allowed to take spiritual direction from the LDS. This is in contrast, for example, with Catholics being officially allowed to take Buddhist direction (in addition, of course, to Catholic guidance). There was a recent thread which discussed the considerable degree to which the Protestant and Catholic beliefs and ceremonies are compatible. The same is not true for the LDS.
The BOM is considered to be mostly a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. None of the claims about its origin (i.e. the transcription from the “golden” plates) can be verified; Smith revised the dates of his “discovery” of the plates several times. Adding to the confusion: he (Smith) claimed that the plates were written in some kind of Egyptian script (“reformed” egyptian characters)-no Egyptologist has ever reported such an alphabet in use in ancient Egypt.
The “golden plates” that Smith claims to have transcribed do not exist any more-they were taken back to heaven by an angel, so they cannot be examined.
Finally, most of the BOM appears to be lifted from several books of the Old and New Testaments; if you pull ot the “and it came to pass’s”, and the “like unto’s”, you don’t have a lot.
Is the BOM credible? I would say no, it is mainly a work of fiction and imagination.
You hit the nail on the head with your etymology, David. “Testament” is basically synonymous with “testimony.” It is indeed a book which presents itself as a true account. The words are derived from the Latin verb “testor” which meant to bear witness. This verb, interestingly enough, is derived from the noun “testiculous” or “testicle.” This is because the Romans customarily grasped their testicles when swearing an oath. By doing so, they believed that the wrath of the gods would would strike them in their jewels if they lied.
You hit the nail on the head with your etymology, David. “Testament” is basically synonymous with “testimony.” It is indeed a book which presents itself as a true account. The words are derived from the Latin verb “testor” which meant to bear witness. This verb, interestingly enough, is derived from the noun “testiculus” or “testicle.” This is because the Romans customarily grasped their testicles when swearing an oath. By doing so, they believed that the wrath of the gods would would strike them in their jewels if they lied.
Oops, it wasn’t THAT interesting. Sorry about the double post.
Mostly_warmer, I’m not arguing for the authenticity of the BoM, only the LDS’ right to BELIEVE it.
Ralph, I pretty much agree with you, but I don’t begrudge anyone who believes in BoM, if it speaks to them and helps them to be good person.
Personally, I’m an agnostic and a skeptic, so I don’t really buy into the literal truth of ANY religious mythology. I do think it’s arbitrary, however, to assert that one mythology is more “true” than another mythology.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. The gospels, for example, are simply not reliable as historical documents:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
Expressions of faith? Yes. Documents of “historical stature”? No.
I find it ironic that you would take a book so heavily reworked and changed as the Bible, and attempt to use it as a benchmark for historical accuracy.
The fact is, the Book of Mormon claims to be another testament of Jesus, and the New Testament claims to be the only testament of Jesus. It all comes down to belief, because neither has any hard evidence to back it up.
As anyone with a lick of sense knows, the claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon after finding golden plates is preposterous.
If you actually believe that fairy tale what’s next? A stone tablet with 12 rules?