FWIW, the Book of Mormon describes the coming to America, about 600 BC (plus or minus a century or so) of a group of Israelites, and their settling of the country, internecine wars, and so on, in a manner very reminiscent of the Books of Kings in the Hebrew Bible.
After His Resurrection and Ascension, Jesus appeared to them as a Resurrected Personage and converted many of them to Christianity – the style of Christianity revived by Joseph Smith for the CoJCoLDS – which is why they’re the “Latter Day Saints.”
After more wars between the righteous and the ungodly, everybody got killed off, and the last survivor, Moroni, climbed Hill Cumorah and there hid the golden plates which his father, Mormon, had written detailing this history.
Guided by Moroni as a Resurrected Personage, Joseph Smith Jr. found those plates, and the rest is LDS history.
That is, in essence, a summary of the content of the Book of Mormon, with how it came to be in its present existence appended as a final paragraph.
None of us who do not belong to the two Mormon churches hold any of this to be true, and most non-Mormons are convinced that the archaeology and anthropology of pre-Columbian America refute the story. However, it’s only fair to report why the Mormons claim that they’re followers of Jesus Christ. (And, much as I dislike porridge, I refuse to play the “no true Christian” game about Mormons.)
This is simply untrue. There was ONE significant edit to the Book of Mormon, almost immediately after it was finished being written. This edit was done to insert punctuation into the writing (as ol’ Joe didn’t put any in during his supposed translation). Since then, the BoM hasn’t had any significant edits to it.
Further, it’s also erroneous to imply that the Bible hasn’t had any changes over the years. Compare the King James version to the New International version, for example, and tell me that there’s no significant difference between them.
If anything, the BoM has withstood the “test of time” far better than the Bible has.
Are such statements as this really valid if one is talking about questions of the history of North and South America? We aren’t dealing with statements like “God is love” or questions like “What is justice?”; we’re dealing with a statement along the lines of “The Angles and the Saxons came to what is now England from what is now northern Germany beginning in the 5th Century C.E.”, or conversely “The Angles and the Saxons were sea-faring samurai from Japan who migrated to England in fleets of ocean-going junks beginning in the 5th Century C.E.” How much credence must we give to someone who claims the latter as a question of “faith”? (Of course in a free country people have a right to believe things which are blatantly false, so long as they don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.)
The same objections hold true to Biblical claims, of course. To the extent the claims of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament go beyond claims like “God loves you”, they are frequently subject to historical confirmation (or disconfirmation).
This is far too sweeping a statement. As to the New Testament, there’s little extra-biblical documentation of such characters as Jesus, Peter, and Paul. Still, it can at least be said that they are presented in a real setting–Roman Judea–living among a real people–the Jews under Roman Imperial rule. It doesn’t contradict on its face what we know of history that these particular people could have lived in that particular time and place. It isn’t like the New Testament is set in Oz.
As to the Hebrew Bible, it varies a good bit. Certainly parts of it are historical records (perhaps biased) of real people and places. There is some extra-biblical evidence of King David; there is certainly extra-biblical evidence of later people and events in the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
There is no evidence outside the Book of Mormon for any of the people and events it describes. And we’re not just talking about a claim that after his death Jesus supernaturally sent a vision to some American Indian prophet–which would be highly impractical to ever check up on–we’re talking about a purported history of entire nations and peoples across North America which doesn’t fit everything else we know about that time and place.
I had heard it said that there were 2,000 + changes made to the Book of Mormon since it’s publication. However it seems that the vast majority of those corrections were minor (such as spelling, grammar, etc.). Only a few really change the narrative or meaning of the passages. All of those changes were apparently made within a decade or two of the books publication. Here’s a link which describes the pertinent changes (about 10 or so).
Do you have information on which specific passages have been changed which are different from the ones listed at that site as well as their date of change?
partly_warmer’s point was that the Old and New Testaments have come down to us in the form in which they were first written down, without later revisions. (Whereas the Book of Mormon has undergone 3 or 4 edits since it first appeared.)
While one might argue that there has been some editing here and there in the Old Testament and in a couple of the Pauline letters, the Mailbag article you linked to doesn’t even mention the possibility that the Gospels were altered after they were written down.
My comments about the changes to the BoM come from a book called “Chaos of the Cults”. This book goes deliberately though a few dozen recent religions, pointing out problems in doctrine or practice (from a Protestant perspective, as I recall).
I read the Mormon part very carefully 20 years ago, and checked the facts as best I was able – before the days of the Internet. “Chaos of the Cults” specifically said that the leaders of the LDS reserved the right to change the BoM at any time to reflect new “inspiration”.
When I confronted my sister (at the time a Mormon convert) with the problems spelled out in “Chaos of the Cults” she informed me that I was presenting the devil’s arguments, and that LDS people were forbidden to argue with diabolical representatives. Specifically, any time a non-LDS person was winning a religious argument they were to get up and leave the room.
The changes to Mormon belief have not always been minor. Early on in the church opinion was divided about the status of blacks. I may not have this exactly right, but at one point the blacks had their own heaven, at another point they went to the same heaven as whites. It may be the case (I can’t quite remember) that there was a point when blacks couldn’t get into heaven at all. (I don’t know the degree to which this is reflected in the BoM.)
Frankly, the idea that 2,000 changes were necessary to make a divinely inspired book readable seems like a big, bright red flag.
Anyone who’s read a few of my other religious posts will realize that I’d be the last person to claim the Bible hasn’t changed. The “historical nature” is that people from all countries have argued about what is for many intents and purposes a quite similar Bible. Christ, Mohammed and rabbi Gamaliel would recognize the content of the “modern” Old Testament with no problem. This Bible is accepted by several major religions, i.e., the majority of the world’s religious, now and in the past 2000 years.
The BoM is not accepted by anyone but the Mormons. What it says tomorrow may be wholly different than what it said yesterday. This is not history.
My comments about the changes to the BoM come from a book called “Chaos of the Cults”. This book goes deliberately though a few dozen recent religions, pointing out problems in doctrine or practice (from a Protestant perspective, as I recall).
I read the Mormon part very carefully 20 years ago, and checked the facts as best I was able – before the days of the Internet. “Chaos of the Cults” specifically said that the leaders of the LDS reserved the right to change the BoM at any time to reflect new “inspiration”.
When I confronted my sister (at the time a Mormon convert) with the problems spelled out in “Chaos of the Cults” she informed me that I was presenting the devil’s arguments, and that LDS people were forbidden to argue with diabolical representatives. Specifically, any time a non-LDS person was winning a religious argument they were to get up and leave the room.
The changes to Mormon belief have not always been minor. Early on in the church opinion was divided about the status of blacks. I may not have this exactly right, but at one point the blacks had their own heaven, at another point they went to the same heaven as whites. It may be the case (I can’t quite remember) that there was a point when blacks couldn’t get into heaven at all. (I don’t know the degree to which this is reflected in the BoM.) There was a change to the BoM in 1981: “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome”, at a moment when the LDS was apparently under fire for being racist.
Frankly, the idea that 2,000 changes were necessary to make a divinely inspired book readable seems like a big, bright red flag.
Anyone who’s read a few of my other religious posts will realize that I’d be the last person to claim the Bible hasn’t changed. The “historical nature” is that people from all countries have argued about what is for many intents and purposes a quite similar Bible. Christ, Mohammed and rabbi Gamaliel would recognize the content of the “modern” Old Testament with no problem. This Bible is accepted by several major religions, i.e., the majority of the world’s religious, now and in the past 2000 years.
The BoM is not accepted by anyone but the Mormons. What it says tomorrow may be wholly different than what it said yesterday. This is not history.
Partly_warmer, you may want to do some more reliable research than a book on cults. There are reasonable resources out there. Please go find them.
The leaders of the LDS Church do not feel the need to revise the BoM. Changes have been to punctuation and spelling, and to get rid of mistakes introduced during the printing process. They are well documented and quite minor. You may be thinking of the Doctrine and Covenants, which contains modern revelation and has had 2 sections added to it in the past 100 years or so.
Your sister may have been thinking of the admonition LDS have to avoid contention. Fighting and contention is not where the Spirit is, and will rarely get anyone anywhere in a religious discussion, so we are counseled to avoid it. Rational discussion, whether we ‘win’ or not, is perfectly OK. Your sister may not have felt that being told she was a member of a cult was a rational discussion, but I don’t know. Maybe she just felt defensive about a new belief, and wasn’t conversant enough yet to counter you.
You have the status of blacks within the LDS Church all wrong. It’s a large issue, and a sensitive one; but at no time has anyone said that they couldn’t go to heaven just like anyone else. During part of our history, there was a policy that black people could not hold the priesthood. To most everyone’s relief, that was changed.
For better information on this religion, you can try www.mormon.org , www.jefflindsay.com , or any of several books that I will be happy to list for you. Jeff Lindsay has some good stuff on BoM and archaeology, and on black people and the Church, for those of you who may be interested in those topics.
Well, at least that’s not as bad as what the Church of Scientology tells its members to do when faced with a “Suppressive Person” (e.g. anyone who says unflattering things about the Church of Scientology).
“Chaos of the Cults” included all sorts of religions we wouldn’t see as being “cults” today. This book was definitely pre-Internet. Having read today through a number of pro and con-Mormon sites, I can’t say my perception changed on the issues I mentioned.
According to Mormons, heaven is divided into celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. Celestial is for perfect Mormons who are ordained to the higher priesthood, and before 1978, this priesthood excluded blacks.
I’m not sure how you could say the LSD leaders don’t intend to modify the BoM, since it happened as recently as 1981. One can quibble about words, but I don’t see changing “white and delightsome” to “pure and delightsome” as minor when it pertains to the church’s attitude toward blacks.
I just phoned my sister about whether she’d been instructed to ignore people with whom she was losing a religious argument; she said it wasn’t a part of public doctrine, but something she would have been taught at “camp”.
So exactly how does that belief hurt you, pw? It’s not like we’re telling lies about you or digging up your dead body for some nefarious ritual or even picketing the hospital or clinic you’re attempting to enter for a perfectly legal medical procedure.
Now a couple of the things you’ve mentioned in your last posting strike me as, well, let’s just say stuff that doesn’t bear me believing it until you provide some proof.
Well, now that is just the liimit! What kind of cockamamie religion doesn’t have secret camps where you discuss secret doctrine? LDS folks, you need to get more evil!
Change the title of the President to the Great and Terrible Dark Overlord, and make him cackle evilly. Oh, and give him a white Persian cat to stroke.
2)Institute human sacrifices ASAP
3)Get some sacred monkeys. Every dark religion needs sacred animals: Thulsa Doom had his snake, the Kali cultists in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom had cobras, and monkeys are cute. Plus they make adorable little spies who will eavesdrop on your enemies’ plans.
Get the membership to wear dark robes and teach 'em to chant in minor keys.
Learn the following phrases:
“Smite the unbelievers!”
“Guards, guards, after them!”
“You cannot resist the awesome power of our god!”
Monty, you can look up “telestial” on Google, and get pro and con-Mormon sites saying essentially the same thing.
Ditto “white and delightsome”.
As to what my sister believed – and whether that was valid – there’s no way to prove that. I imagine the camp my sister was referring to was a religious summer camp. It’s not that the camps or the teaching are secret (she said) but that there are certain aspects of Mormonism that aren’t generally included in the public advertistments.
The OP asked whether it was a testament of JC. . . right up front tracer answered it wasn’t, according to anyone except the Mormons. Are you claiming another religion recognizes the BoM?
As to how it hurts me. Well, it doesn’t, much. It’s kinda sad when the Mormons succeed in convincing one’s sister that all religion is stupid. It’s sad when a guy you’ve worked with for years stops talking to you when he discovers your beliefs. But I can live with it if they can.
Where did I ever claim another religion claims that, pw? You’re dangerously approaching the newton’s version of discussing this issue. What I said was that those of us believe it to be a document that testifies of Christ believe it testifies of Christ. Those who don’t believe it consider it to be false.
Wherever or however you got a rock up your nose regarding this is irrelevant to anyone but you apparently.
Not quite. The celestial kingdom is for a lot of people, not all of them Mormon during their earthly lifetime, and not all of whom have to have held the priesthood. It was often stated pre-1978 that though blacks could not have the priesthood yet, this would be no bar to receiving all the blessings that anyone would be entitled to after death. We also believe that children who die young will most likely go there, and people who accept work done for them vicariously. It’s up to Heavenly Father to judge, not us, and I don’t think he withholds heaven because of race.
The ‘pure’ vs. ‘white’ question is one of those corrections I mentioned. If you look at the original manuscript, which became available again awhile back, it says ‘pure’–so they changed it back. An early edition of the BoM also had that change, but later editions were based on the first one, which had the mistake in the first place. If you read the Jeff Lindsay page on blacks and the priesthood that I mentioned above, you will see the following:
Let’s just take GENESIS. Many of the claims in this book are flatly contradicted by all geologic, archaeological and historical evidence. Stories like the creation, Cain and Abel, and the flood (originally Mesopotamian myths) simply do not hold up to even a moment of objective scientific scrutiny. However many dogged fundies still cling to a literal belief in these stories. Is the belief that Adam and Eve were real people (or that Jesus came back from the dead) really any LESS preposterous than the story of Joseph Smith? If God can give Moses stone tablets then why can’t he give Joseph Smith golden plates? (where ARE those tablets BTW? How do we know that they ever existed?) As I said before, I personally don’t believe any of it, but I think that it’s capricious to buy into one fairy tale and then dismiss another as not being “credible.”
Are you required to believe that Jesus came back to life to be a Catholic? Are you required to believe that the communion wafer is literally the “Corpus Christi?” Are you required to believe that Jesus was literally God? (I am a product of Catholic schools, BTW, so I know the answers to these questions) My point is, if you can believe in one miracle, then you can’t dismiss another person’s miracle.