Book of Mormon described as "Another testament of Jesus Christ" in ads. Is this true?

Great Debates
41

partly_warmer quote:

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.

genie quote: 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.

Whew. One certainly comes to appreciate the frustrations non-Christians have arguing with Christians. The nomenclature seems to slip all over the page.

genie you said earlier “During part of our history, there was a policy that black people could not hold the priesthood.” If it wasn’t absolutely true that barred them from the highest heaven (there were examples of three black people who were exceptions in one site I read) wasn’t it typically true? Wasn’t it a special hurdle blacks had to overcome that whites didn’t? So isn’t it true that blacks (with some exceptions) used to go to a different heaven, but now don’t?

Is this quote somehow false?

“…the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern[ed]….” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 528; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current ed…"

42

Are all miracles equally believable? I’d say not. They’re certainly not all equally necessary for faith.

Trundle back 2,000 years. Jesus raises the dead. He walks on water. He rises from the dead. There are an awful lot of people all around who would like to prove him wrong, yet there seem to be no “counter-theories” from the Romans, the Jews, etc.

Compare with a supposed miracle of golden tablets appearing in “reformed Egyptian” (as I recall). Tablets disappear. Magic glasses disappear. Reformed Egyptian isn’t recognized by scholars, who deny being consulted. Counter explanation immediately suggested by all and sundry: tablets never existed.

43

You cite the alleged miracles of Jesus as if they have some weight of evidence behind them. They do not. There is, in fact, no extra-Biblical documentary evidence whatsoever of any miraclulous activity by Jesus. There are two scant (and non-contemporary) references to his very EXISTENCE. Josephus and Tacitus, both refer to FOLLOWERS of Christ. Neither of them mentions any supernatural qualities attributed to Jesus. (other than a few forged Christian interpolations in Josephus) The Romans did not require any “counter-arguments” with regards to miracles because they were not AWARE of any miracles. Wouldn’t something as extrordinary as a resurrection have warranted at least a MENTION by Roman historians?

44

Well, I might buy the arguments about the Romans, since I’m not at all clear on Roman history, and don’t know how much they involved themselves in the daily life of the people. Ponders . . . except . . . how would a Roman centurion know to send for Jesus to cure his son?

(Aren’t we getting a little close to a hijack here? I have a feeling we’ll meet in other threads :slight_smile: )

Jews of the time: very, very annoyed by Christ and Christians. Certainly making great effort to confront, trap, and ultimately kill Christ. It wouldn’t take but one miracle that was proved false to make a laughing stock of the Christians. For example, supposing Lazarus wasn’t brought back from the dead. It would have been surpassingly easy to go to Lazarus’ village, ask the ex-dead man a few questions about the grape crop, and determine by artful interrogation, whether, in fact, he was alive. Hardly the sort of opportunity the enraged Jewish community would have missed. Even if the Roman community was indifferent, or as you suggest, unknowing.

45

You’re arguing backwards here. The burden of proof is not to to prove that the miracles DIDN’T happen. It’s to prove that they DID. Let me connect this back to the original topic: The BoM makes seemingly implausible claims and cannot back them up with any outside evidence. The Bible seems to make implausible claims and cannot be backed up with any outside evidence. The Gospels claim that Jesus performed miracles and came back from the dead. There is absolutely NO extra-Biblical evidence to support these claims. No contemporary historians seem to have ANY knowledge of them.

There is no extra-Biblical evidence that the Jews had a problem with Jesus. The Gospels say that Jesus WAS a Jew, and that all of his disciples were Jews. There are no contemporary references to Jesus in Jewish literature, but in later cenuries he was recognized as a wise and righteous teacher (if not the son of God). Jesus was executed by the Romans as a public nuisance. The Jews had no authority to crucify people. this was exclusively a Roman method of punishment. Furthermore, if the “Jews” had really wanted to kill Jesus for some perceived religious offense, they could have stoned him without Roman permission. The Romans had no interest in the internal religious divisions of the Jews as long as they did not threaten the Pax Romana.

The Roman centurion you mentioned exists only in the gospels, so obviously this cannot count as EXTRA-BIBLICAL support for any Roman knowledge of miracles

The Bible and the BoM are equally credible, or incredible, depending entirely on what your faith is.

46

Oh, really? So you have a fragment of parchment written in Hebrew sitting on your bookshelf?

The material in the Bible went through WAY more changes since the writings therein first appeared. I think genie already debunked partly_warmer’s claim that the Book of Mormon is still being substantively revised. New versions of the Bible keep coming out all the time; if editing destroys the integrity of the work, then the Bible certainly suffers that fate. I fail to see the distinction between the two.

The article suggests that they were taken and altered from a source that doesn’t even exist anymore, a prospect even more damning of their historical integrity. Many biblical scholars who have compared the synoptic gospels have pointed out examples of the authors putting their own “spin” on the events, and obvious examples of one gospel “correcting” errors in another gospel, when the two are supposedly independent accounts.

AND, the article points out that when the New Testament was compiled, a decision was made as to which gospels to include, and which to leave out:

In other words, a decision was made by men as to what what got included in the New Testament, even as regards such a fundamental issue as the nature of the Resurrection itself!

I’m sorry, but for anyone to criticize the Book of Mormon, and then in the same breath claim that the gospels are iron-clad documents is ludicrous.

47

Nope, it was never ‘typically’ true. You have to understand that in the way Mormons see the world, having blessings withheld in this life is not a bar to receiving them in the next; in fact, the patience involved with perservering despite the lack of these blessings would result in more, not less, later on. A black man who was not allowed to receive the priesthood in 1920 but who had faith anyhow would receive all his blessings after death. Anyone at all who was a good person and lived according to the light they had–whether or not they ever heard of the LDS Church–would be able to learn more after death, and would be just as able as anyone else to go to the celestial kingdom. We hope that the celestial kingdom will be as large as possible, and the only thing stopping us from going there is our own desire not to.

Yes, it is. The reason it was changed in the current edition is because Elder McConkie retracted it. (The title is unfortunate, actually–it was never a doctrinal book, but contained many of McConkie’s own interpretations. It is a useful reference, but hardly scriptural.) Here is his statement:

(*(Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978, as quoted in Jessie L. Embry, Black Saints in a White Church (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 34, as cited online by Juliann Reynolds in an article at http://www.fair-lds.org/apol/morm201/m20116.html.
*)

Once again, this is easily found at the Jeff Lindsay page that I cited above. You could save some time by going and reading it.

48

genie: pw is merely here, thanks to the thread title, to spout the same old tired anti-Mormon bigotry. That he’s decided there’s a degree of “miracality” (if I may coin such a word) shows that he’s already dismissed anything about our faith as just absolutely impossible, but the miracles of other faiths are, of course, completely possible, at least as far as pw’s concerned.

49

Do you go to a Ford dealership to learn about Chevy’s? Ask a buddhist about catholicism?

Partly_warmer, the same goes for mormons. Don’t look us up in a cult book, try asking us. You might actually get correct information.

50

OK, you can ask me.

Raised Mormon, preisthood holder, missionary, and for the past 23 years, self proclaimed agnostic. 4 years of Seminary (high school religious training) under my belt. I lived, breathed and exuded Mormonism for many many years.

This is a subject that has bothered me for many years - the changes in the Book of Mormon. The cites I use are from this page , which claims there have been 3,913 changes to the BoM since it was published in 1830. And not just minor changes. Here’s one of my favorites:

1 Nephi 13:40 (1830 Edition): "… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior … "

Now compare 1 Nephi 13:40 with the 1964 edition: “… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior …” (italics mine).

In the 1830 version it is saying that Jesus is God. But that is not in harmony with LDS doctrine, which claims that God and Jesus are two distinct and separate personages, with bodies of flesh and bone! So the italicized three words were added, to bring the BoM in line with official LDS doctrine.

Along the same lines, in 1 Nephi 11:18 (1830 edition), you read the following: “… Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”

In modern editions, 1 Nephi 11:18 has had words added to completely change the meaning and bring the verse into line with modern doctrine: “… Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” (again, italics mine).

There are numerous examples of this, and as not to make this post equal in length to War and Peace, I will close by adding one of my favorite changes to the book.

There are statements in the BoM that are from close associates of Joseph Smith, attesting to the authenticity of the Golden Plates and of this work. In the Statement of the 8 Witnesses, 1830 edition, it reads: “… Joseph Smith, Jr. the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates…”. In the modern edition, the statement now reads: “… Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates…”

Dictionary definition time:

trans·la·tor n.
One that translates, especially:
One employed to render written works into another language.

Compare that with:

au·thor n.
The writer of a book, article, or other text.

and

pro·pri·e·tor n.
One who has legal title to something; an owner.
One who owns or owns and manages a business or other such establishment with the expectation of profit.

Raise a few eybrows?
:rolleyes:

51

I see His4 isn’t posting here.
So she is Not as dumb as peopel seem to think.

(I’m serious, I am not insulting her)

Anyway, my answer to the OP is “If you think it is, then it is.”

(okay, Monty?)

52

Naw, the original topic has lost my interest. I suddenly realized what my sister meant yesterday by calling the Mormons a cult.

Let’s pick up this issue of burden of proof and how to interpret historical records on the rebound, in another thread.

53

Yo, Mormons.

  1. I gave you a way to find current, online cites supporting my position.
  2. I’ve read parts of the BoM.
  3. I lived with LDSers.
  4. I have a degree in American History. It emphasizes historiography – how history is written and miswritten.
  5. I’ve read dozens of religious books from a variety of religions, including ones on Mormonism.

If I were in court – not speaking for any other person or group – I would say that to the best of my knowledge:

Joesph Smith was a liar.

1a) He lied about finding golden tablets. There were no tablets.
1b) He lied about finding magic spectacles to read the tablets. There were no spectacles.
1c) He lied about seeing an angel. He saw no angel.
1d) He lied about reading the tablets.
1e) He lied about consulting an Egyptologist about the language on the tablets.

For those of you who don’t know Mormonism, this means he lied about EVERY SINGLE THING that Mormonism is based on.

Unlike other religions such as Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, and Buddhism, where some inaccuracy over thousands of years of translation is unavoidable, Joesph Smith, in an era where written documents had great legal weight, conveniently lost EVERY piece of evidence supporting his claim.

You folks out there who want to draw an equivalence between religions by saying “it’s all faith”, see a difference? Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha, whatever else they were, were not liars.

54

To make the statements that you have oh so boldly made shows how little your scholastic achievement has helped your pursuit of knowledge. It was my understanding that the purpose of the Straight Dope was to eliminate ignorance, not promote it.

55

Partly_warmer, were you there with Joseph Smith? No. Then you have no way of proving that your theories are correct. Historian or not, you cannot prove it.

56

Yo, pw. Prove Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Your failing to do that, with your attitude against the LDS, shows me that not only do you have a degree in History, you don’t understand what’s said to you.

57

Absolutely, vanilla. Kind of thought that’s what my first posting on page one meant.

58

Ya know, partly_warmer, if you’d read the links on the first page, you wouldn’t embarass yourself so much.

There were a total of 11 witnesses of the Golden Plates other than Joseph Smith.

The first three give their witness here, and the other eight give their witness here.

59

Interestingly, this is eleven MORE eyewitnesses than we have for the miracles of Christ.

60

Hi, genie. I checked over those sites some time ago, based on your recommendation to me. You may want to do some reliable research of your own into their research.

Partly warmer,

Here’s some online books I came across that contain a fair amount of info on Mormon topics, including copies of original documentation to back up what they say. (I see someone already connected to the 3,000+ BoM changes part offered on the page.) You can check out things like what people like Joseph Smith really thought about emarkup’s “11 witnesses”.

http://www.utlm.org/navonlinebooks.htm