Thank you for stepping up So now there is no disputation on that subject! What is your next observation of disagreement! I am a convert! I am defender of this faith ! There is no subject off the table! I enjoy deep discovery Especially on the subject of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon I invite you to ask any questions. Sincerely your brother in Christ Roger
@@rogerpreble440 brother, Roger you seem like a good person, thank you for your comment. I invite you to read the CES letter and the prequels of the Book of Mormon. If you haven’t read them, don’t be afraid to see the truth, even in the most unexpected places. Do a search for the Late War, the first book of Napoleon, and View of the Hebrews. God bless you.
Galatians 2:15-16 gives us the best definition of Paul's usage of the phrase “the works of the law.” The letter to the Galatians has been about those troublers who are saying that the Gentile Christians must observe the Law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1,5).Jun 21, 2015
The BOM is so intricate, it pulls together people and events over many centuries. This video is just one more push to try to dissuade a person from reading it. I read it in 1972, wrestled with some things in my life, then I knew I had to face my moral convictions, I knew the book was from a source that was beyond J. Smith, I knew it completely, and at that time I didn't understand completely what the Holy Ghost could do. Later after flooding myself with scriptures, I was able to understand fully the doctrines and the beautiful plan of salvation. I realized so many of Father's children didn't understand with the light and knowledge they had, they did their best, and others just didn't care, they remained being part of the world as I got to know people over the years and tried to explain to them, that the book had the fulness of Christ's gospel in it and that receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after being baptized would enable them, if they lived a good life to always rely on it, to guide them in decisions and warn them. And for 50 years I have lived this way. Read the book the yourself, if you have an honest heart, there's certain things that will ring true, and you will not be able to put it down. There are non-biased bible scholars that once they read the book will say, where did this book come from. It's laughable that Joseph made it up, that's the wisdom with our Father in Heaven. Joseph could barely write a paragraph at that time because his education was so very limited, but he managed to write this, and scribes said he would go and eat lunch and then remember exactly where it was before he left. You learn more about the Father and Son and the role of the Holy Spirit with this book than any other book.
I’m pretty sure everybody here has already read the book. I invite you not to be dissuaded by mind controllers, who may tell you not to read anything outside of the church materials. Thankfully, we don’t live in a dictatorial country that prohibits what books we read. Don’t let your religion dictate what you can read. Start with the CES letter. Your mind will be open soon. Don’t be afraid to look at LDS discussions or Mormon stories podcasts either
I understand what you are saying. I don't know whether or not a conversion necessarily follows reading although I suspect it might be essential to have a full understanding prior to conversion. As far as Joseph Smith not being able to compose a paragraph I mostly am unconvinced of that being true. He might have had limited intellectual capacity. He maybe wasn't well versed in literature and that might be why some people make reference to it but he probably understood enough to make the record relatable. I never completely bought into the premise he was incoherent or incapable of making a readable translation. He was well into his twenties. He knew sufficient to make his presence known and he wasn't completely without schooling.
No ONE has proven or validated the Book of Mormon, not one artifact has been found. You might want read about Santan and all his tactics, he can even turn himself into an angel, and he could make you believe the Book of Mormon is a real book when it is not. There is only one Book of God and that is the bible, it is written by God.
I've been reading the Book of Mormon daily for decades of my now-long life. There is no other book that even comes close in the spiritual power that somehow flows form the book, and the and clarity that it delivers to one's heart and mind. In my life, when I stopped reading it daily, things seemed to start to not go as well or I was not as able to handle as well the things that were taking place. My faith in Christ decreased. When I have returned to reading it daily, I noticed that things in life get easier to handle. My faith in Christ and in our Father in Heaven increases. I can witness that experience. It is the greatest book of which I know. (I note that you conveniently skip over the question begged of you of who YOU think wrote the Book of Mormon. Before you can legitimately state any "expectations" or "we would expect..." sophistry, perhaps you could tell us who wrote the Book of Mormon - from where did it come. Then maybe we'll be more open to your other comments on what you think the book should or should not be.)
A lot of folks glean spiritual benefits from many books, including the Quaran, Dianetics, the Four Vedas, Talmud, etc. Joseph Smith was listed as the author in the original edition. His mother admitted he was telling Book of Mormon themed stories with the family before ever penning the book. Take his imagination + View of the Hebrews + King James Bible + whole chapters from Isaiah = Book of Mormon. We know he has a great imagination, just look at his other fraudulent translation, the Book of Abraham.
That’s sad the level of your faith in Christ is based on a book. Especially a book where the ideas were copied from View of the Hebrews, the late war, the first book of Napoleon, and of course, the king James version of the Bible.
Satan has great tactics to keep you from the Word of God and believing in the true Jesus, Jesus is not created, he is eternal. Mormonism has a different God, a different Jesus, which means you may want to check on your salvation.
And it came to pass that I came across another idiot that can leave the church, but can't leave it alone… Lol gotta love the people that apostasies… But just can't leave the church alone😅
Write this sentence 1000 times on the blackboard... And again verily I say unto you let my Servant Sidney Gilbert plant himself in this place & establish a Store that he may sell Goods without fraud that he may obtain money to buy lands for the good of the Saints & that he may obtain provisions & whatsoever things the disciples may need to plant them in their inheritance & also let my Servant Sidney obtain Licence (Behold here is wisdom & whose readeth let him understand) that he may send- goods also unto the Lamanites even by whom he will as Clerks employed in his service & thus the Gospel may be preached unto them- And again verily I say unto you let my Servant William [W. Phelps] also be [p. [35]]planted in this place & be established as a printer unto the Church & lo! if the world receiveth his writings (behold this is wisdom) let him obtain whatsoever he can obtain in righteousness for the good of the Saints, & let my Servant Oliver [Cowdery] assist him even as I have commanded in whatsoever place I shall appoint unto him to copy & to correct & select that all things may be right before me as it shall be proved by the spirit through him- And thus let those of whom I have spoken be planted in the land of Zion as speedily as can be with their families to do these things even as I have spoken- And now concerning the gathering let the Bishop & the Agent make preparations for those families which have been commanded to come to this land as soon as possible & plant them in their inheritance & unto the residue of both Elders & members further directions shall be given hereafter- Even so Amen.- [p. [36]]
Low intelligence on full display here, or a Ginuwine unwillingness to look at both sides of the story When Alma wrote those verses, he was in America… He had never been to Jerusalem or to Bethlehem Bethlehem is approximately 8 miles from the center of Jerusalem The land of Jerusalem is a correct term… Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem It's like asking a person where are you from and they say Kansas City But in reality they live in a suburb of Kansas City Let's get real, and be honest with your objections Like I said, you can leave the church, but you just can't leave it alone
@@ts-900 Hey, when people boldly announce lies, then they deserve a bold response… Remember Jesus over through the tables of the money changes If somebody doesn't stand up for the truth, then the lies perpetuate themselves I'm simply responding and kind with a little bit of rambunctiousness In reality, we are both on the same team, fighting evil… I never initiate any derogatory comments about any other faith, but I will defend my faith in the face of face, lies and accusations that have no premise or basis in reality 😁
Why do you insert so many commas, even in purported quotations, where commas do not belong or are not present in the original? Get a grammar checker and please quit using so many grammatically-incorrect commas.
I LOVE the Book of Mormon! I’ve studied the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon for over 40 years. Both, equally, testify if the divinity of Jesus Christ. If you say the Book of Mormon is not true, then the Bible is not true because each one testifies of the other. And if you’ve never taken the time to study the Book of Mormon yourself, and find out for yourself, instead of listening to opinions of others, then you are missing out.
I've studied both. Unlike the Bible, I don't know where the events in the Book of Mormon take place, who its people are, or what language it was written in. When I talk to LDS, they can't even agree if Cumorah/Ramah is the same hill where Joseph found the plates. The LDS church doesn't even teach the truths found in the Book of Mormon, like God is a Spirit (Alma 18:26-28), that God dwells in our hearts (Alma 34:36, D&C 130:3 contradicts that). That God is Supreme Creator (2 Nephi 2:14, Mosiah 4:9, Alma 22:10-11, cf. 18:28-29, Alma 30:44, Mormon 9:11). That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God (2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7). That Jesus IS the Father (Ether 3:14, Alma 11:38-39, Mosiah 15:4, 2 Nephi 11:7, Mosiah 7:27, Original edition: 1 Nephi 11:18,21,32, 13:40, "the Son of" inserted in later editions). That there is only One God (Alma 11:26-29, 35, 14:5). The church removed Lecture 5 from the D&C which taught these same things. The Book of Mormon is a "gateway" to get people in the LDS cult, and then they end up deceiving Saints with teachings that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, God was a man, and is just one of countless deities out there, including a "Heavenly Mother", and if Saints are obedient to the church, they become gods too! The Book of Mormon is silent on the many teachings that separate the LDS church from the rest of Christianity: Aaronic priesthood, Baptism for the dead, Celestial marriage, Exaltation, Heavenly mother, Polytheism, Temple endowments, Three heavens. So what exactly are those who don’t study the Book of Mormon missing?
@@robholden4847 I think what they are missing, to adress your last question, is that they make the Bible work by presupposing inerrancy, meaning, thats a fine way to bend away all the inconsictencies, errors and contradictions we find within the Bible. Not just is the inerrency of the Bible not a biblical teaching, but actually to a great deal rooted in pro-slavery Christians fearing slavery to end, though they felt it was supported in the Bible. Everyone who looks at all the supposed inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, but at the same time claimes the Bible to be inerrant, meaning to believe the Bible is without error in regards to Science History, politics and much more, has either not ever really read the Bible, nor taken any interest in the academic world outside of evangelism. The main issue here is that Mormonism believe in modern day revelation, and therefore many things will differ, because otherwise there would be no need for modern day revelation, at least from a LDS viewpoint. So, the real discussion should be about Solar Scriptura, whether the Bible is all we need, and whether the Bible is inerrant, so, I will address that one. The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible actually originates from the late 19th and early 20th century and mainly served as a attempt to push back against the liberalism and the rationalism of the Enlightenment. The thing is, not just do the authors of the Bible frequently disagree with eachother, you also have Jesus, for example, teach three different and contradictive versions of hell, claim that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world (which it is not), have Paul mix up what was seen and heard, have Matthew quoting Zechariah, whilst saying he is quoting Jeremiah, and then have dudes like Luther and Calvin that had no issue admidting that there were these contradictions, also in relation to the details of the cruxifision and resurrection of Christ. But also many of the early church fathers did not believe the Bible was without errors. Origin thought there were discrepancies in the gospels like the different details in the crucifixion and Resurrection stories, but he didn't think that they had much theological significance, so they did not matter much to him, sounds like something a Universalist would say. John Christosum also didn't believe the Bible needed to be in harmony with history since most of it was unimportant to the matters of Faith. Even Jerome was unconcerned about some of the discrepancies in the Bible, while there are Christians who believe in biblical inarrancy, who also believe some of the early church fathers also believed in biblical inarrancy. The way modern Christians understand biblical inherrancy is much different than how early church fathers would have understood it, since the modern way of understanding biblical inerrancy didn't exist in the early church even in the Reformation era there was still not much of an emphasis on biblical inerrancy. One of the biggest problems in regard to the Scriptures being inherent, univocal and sufficient arises when taking a look at the word "inspired", as it is for used for example in 2 Timothy 3:1-6, which word is originally translated from the Greek "theopneustos". This is especially vital because the meaning of the word "inspired", as we understand it today, meaning that "inspired" defines what "scripture" actually is, or that leads up to the claim that every word of the Bible comes directly from God, only received that meaning at around the 3rd Century CE. Prior to that, "theopneustos" meant "God-Breathed", in the sense of life-giving and livening, and this is why we see it commonly being used in relation to things like "Springs of water","ointments" and even "sandals". So the basic notion here is that the idea of "inspired" and "God-Breathed" where not ideas that the biblical authors themselves came up with, but actually were were later additions to the Bible. Most scholars agree that Paul is not even the author of Timoty (and Titus), but that these books were written decades after Pauls death by someone writing in his name, and in this time period, especially if you assign Paul as the author of second Timothy, the texts of the New Testament were not even considered scripture. "The Scriptures" was actually a reference merely to the Jewish Scripures, not the New Testament. The way I see it, the Bible itself is nowhere asserting anything remotely approximating what we now understand by inerrancy, which is clearly seen by the biblical authors frequently disagreeing with each other. So, and once we take away the magic veil of the inerrancy of the Bible, we see that many things are not as univocal and inerrant as imposed upon the Bible... Certainly, there are historical backups for things in the Bible, but there are also missing many things... For example, nowhere in egypt literature do we find anything on the red sea story, and if that many people would have died in the manner as described in the Bible, we certainly would have someone talk about it, some dude missing one of his family dudes, for example. Personally if there is someting I hate, than it is one-sidedness.. I have no problem to admidt that there are issues within Mormonism, that not all things are perfect, and I think it is good to address all these things in a good manner.. but so do I also go about with the Bible, aswell as with anything else. When we talk about history and facts, the only way it works is when people are always willing to put the date over the dogma, even if it contradicts the own faith, which are the kind of scholars I leatn from to the very most, because they have proven to love truth more than dogma. But there acually are also way more evidences for the Book of Mormon than many want to be there.. Just one example, a few decades ago there were about 200 anachronisms brought forth against the book of Mormon, things that Joseph could not have known, things that were used as evidence for the incrediblity of the Book of Mormon, for example, roads being mentioned in america, of which over 100 of them have now proven to be right.. So when looking at all these things, we will never have a 100 % inerrancy of any scripture, and religion, or any dogma, but Jesus taught how to discern spiritual truth from deception by the fruits it brings forth, making clear, once we know the "good fruit", we will also know the tree is good... And so I think that herein lies the only way to really know what is of God and what not, and as Paul made clear, these good fruits are neither works, nor faith, not the gifts of the spirit, nor the knowing and understanding of all doctrines and mysteries, but is something that James described as the purest form of religion, which is not found in being theological correct about everything. Just look at the good Samaritian, he also was believe to be pagan, to err in doctrine, and yet he was the one whom Christ considered to be good, because he lived the purest form of religion, doing the will of the father. So the question should rather be, what are people missing when they see how people come unto Christ by reading the Book of Mormon, living that purest form of religion, still seeking out all its supposed mistakes, whilst having the same thing in a different colour within their own faith and religion? The Bible, according to current academic consensus, does not teach that it is inerrant, it does not teach "sola scriptura", it does not teach "monotheism" as we understand it today, it does not even teach that Jesus claimed to be God, it contradicts in many places, it is greatly influenced by greco-roman philosophies, you get authors that disagree with eachother in all sorts of placed on all sorts of topics, and yet, you still have faith in Christ. So how with that, can you deny that others may also come unto Christ, even if by the means of the Book of Mormon?
@@robholden4847 And in addition to my last post, mayby if I get the time I will adress all the issues you brought up, but just one thing that just stuck out to me.. You bring up Alma 18:26 as an argument that the Book of Mormon teaches God to be "a great Spirit". But as with so many things, one look into it's context actually clarifies what this is all about. Obviusly we have Ammon speak to Lamamite King Lamonie, who was the one believing in "a great spirit", and Ammon was simply trying to explain God to him using Lamonis understanding of God, which actually would fit what was believed amongst the Mayas, so if we asume for a second that is wehre the BOM took place. It is also intersting in that regard that once Cortez arrived in the americas, the native americans worshipped him as the "white God with beard that once was amongst them, and promised to come back to them".. Just recently I read a historical book for kids that actually talked about this, kind of facinating I think.
@@robholden4847 I actually took the time to adress all your listed issues. Feel welcome to let me know where I err, because I care, and so anything that helps get closer to the truth is something I welcome. FIRST: God the „Great Spirit“ (Alma 18:12) When Ammon taught a Lamanite king named Lamoni, the king did not at first understand what Ammon meant by the concept of “God.” Ammon then compared God to the “Great Spirit,” a divine entity with which Lamoni and his people were apparently familiar (Alma 18:24-28). This is interesting in so far as that the believe in a „great Spirit“ fits well if we assume a Mesoamerican setting (for example the Maya) for the book of Mormon. So in other words, this scripture is not teaching that God was or is a mere Spirit. SECOND: God dwelleth in heart contracition Alma 34:36/D&C 130:3 In Doctrine and Covenents it talks about the „physical“ attributes of God the Father and Jesus Christ, speaking out against the old secratrian notion that they he, with that, dwells in the hearts of men, whilst Alma is talking about „the Spirit of God dwelling in them“ (see verse 35). THIRD: God is Suprene Creator I am not quite sure what excactly here the point is that you are trying to make, but yes, LDS believe God to be the creator of all things, the creator (organizer) of heaven and earth, the creator of all living things. Now, if you want to indicate that this means that God literally created everything out of nothing, then no, that is not whet LDS believe, but also not what these scriptures are indicating. I get that this may be a bit of a silly example, but when you eat lunch, and afterwards tell your friend that you „ate all food“, it doesnt mean you actually ate all foor in existence, but you ate all food „in relevance to you“.. and so to say that „God is the creator of all things“, can also mean that „God is the creator of all things in relation to us, our world, our universe“, and so forth. More interestingly is mayby that creation ex nihilo is not in the Bible, not according to academic consensus. The academic consensus here is, that it rather is a invention of the second century CE. The idea itself arose within debates between Christians, Gnostics and other Greco-Roman thinkers, specifically about the rationality of the resurrection, Ultimatly Christians came up with the idea that matter is not separate from deity, but that matter has to be a product of deity, meaning that God is responsible for the creation of all matter, which layed the foundation of the doctrine that the whole universe was created out of nothing, which was a direct rejection of more conventional Greco-Roman wisdom, which taught nothing being able to come out of nothing, but that was a handy christian identity marker and also allowed them to say: "Our God is bigger than yours." „In the beginning“, which originates from the hebrew word Вereshit, ia actually used around six times within the hebrew Bible, and never referes to In the beginning of nothing, but instead always refers to In the beginning of something, for example to the beginning of the reign of a King. This is something most scholars agree on, which is why many more schloolarly modern translation do translate Genesis 1:1 as temporal clause: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was „Tohuwabohu “. „Tohuwabohu“ (hebrew), which means something like „trackless expanse of the deseret“ or „desolate and empty”, is a poetic couplet that is probably not used so much for any kind of semantic specificity, as for the rhyme. FOURTH: Jesus Christ and God are one God (2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7) In case your are using these scriptures to show that the Book of Mormon does not support the idea of God the Father and Jesus Christ being seperate beings, but yet still one God in purpose, then this is not very convincing for several reasons: 1. We have Jesus being WITH the Father in 3 Nephi 9:15 2. We have Jesus the „Name of the Father IN HIM“ in 3 Nephi 9:15 3. We have Jesus praying to the Father (3 Nephi 17:15) 4. We have a resurrected Christ „go unto the Father (3 Nephi 26:15) 5. We have Nephi hear the voice of the Father and the Son seperatly 6. We have the Book of Moses, which was written just a few years after the BOM, where we have God the Father, Jesus Christ and Lucifer have a threefold conversation 7. Besides that do we also have early sources outside the BOM confirming the teachings of Joseph Smith on the Godhead, for example David Withmer wrote about it in 1831 8. Also we have D&C 76:20-24 adressing this written in 1832 9. And from the Bible we have Jesus clarifying the „Oneness“ of him and the Father, when stating that „we are to become one with eachother, even as he is one with the Father“, which I hope does not mean we are all ending up becoming one in essence. 10. And we have academics agree that when it states in „John 1:1“ that „and the Word was God“, that it correctly should tanslate as „and the Word was Deity“. I think I eplxained that to you elsewhere, but point 2, where it states that Jesus has „Gods name in him“, is a clear reference to the hebrew tradition of bearing Gods divine name, acting in his name, even speaking „as Adonai“, and yet still remain a seperate being, as we see with „The Angel of the Lord“ in Exodus 3, Exodus 23, as in many other places in Judges, where the „Angel of the Lord“ also has Gods name „in him“, even having been given the authority to forgive sins. And so when we read the Bible with that understanding, we also see that Jesus actually tries to distinguish himsel in every instance from God the Father (God the Father being the only good, Jesus asking that the bitter cup may pass, and so forth). FIFTH: Jesus is the Father (Ether 3:14, Alma 11:38-39, Mosiah 15:4, 2 Nephi 11:7, Mosiah 7:27 As far as I see it, there are three instances where Christ is considered to be „the Father“ 1. Jesus being the „Father of Creation“ 2. Jesus being the „Father of Salvation“ 3. Jesus being the „bearer of the Divine Name of the Father“, having „his Fathers name in him“, as explained above, as in referece to „the Father“ also being kind of a „title“, meaning, sometimes we may have instances where Jesus takes on the divine image of the Father, and we could not tell the difference. SIXTH: Jesus and Lucifer are Brothers In that regard LDS believe that: 1. God is the Father of all Spirits (Hebrews 12:9) 2. That there is a Spirit in every man (Job 32:8 3. That Angels have also Spirits (Hebrews 1:13-14) 4. And that Jesus also has a Spirit Luke 23:25 So when LDS use the term of spiritually being „brothers and sister“, then in regard to all of us being spiritually created by God, but certainly not to indicate that Jesus and Lucifer are best buddies. SEVENTH: God once was a men This obviously is related to modern day revelation, though we also know that we do not really have much revelation been given on what happened excactly before we were all created by God, and so much remains speculation. The debate in this case should rather be about „Sola Scriptura“ and whether there is such a thing as modernday revelation, which would take too much space now. EIGHT: Heavenly Mother Interesting point. A lot of people don't know that Scholars overwhelmingly agree that throughout the entire history of the Bible God was understood to have a physical body and most Scholars also think that prior to around the 8th or 7th Century BCE God also had a wife. So, that is not taken from LDS sources, but from public studies and scholars who talk about this. NINE: The believe to become Gods The idea to become Gods is not something that is taught every sunday at church, aswell as that only a few Prophets talked about it in a manner that seems to heat the conversation. The primarely focus at church is about following Jesus Christ, and to become like God by following Jesus Christ. When we look at Christ, he, bein God himself, said that whosoever wants to be the greatest, shall serve, as he set the perfect example. I get that the idea to become like God seems odd or offensive to many, but once we understand that God is love, that God is truth, that God is the greatest servent of us all, that he gave his life for us, and that he promised us that we shall be perfected in love and truth, that we can and shall be joint heirs with him, receive of his glory even as he received of the fathers glory, that idea also becomes at least a different touch to it. So whosoever „desires to be a God“, does not care at all about being a God, but rather cares about following the example of Christ, having faith that through his atonement, we shall be perfected. TEN: The Book of Mormon is silent about: Aaronic priesthood, Baptism for the dead, Celestial marriage, Exaltation, Heavenly mother, Polytheism, Temple endowments, Three heavens. Once again it comes back to the believe in modernday revelation, where precept upon precept is revealed. Mormon himself stated that he held back many informations which shall be revealed later according to the faith of the people (3 Nephi 26:8-11) So, just because topics are not adressed in the BOM, does not mean they are wrong. And as a side-note, Denver Snuffer, no more a member of the LDS church but a strong believer of the BOM points out in one of his Books how the BOM actually teaches the Endowment in the first chapter of Nephi, and goes into detail about that deeper level of symbolism. And also as side-note, we also have Don Bradley, who left the church and came back later on, lay out interestingly how the First Vision already contained hints and symbolisms of the temple rituals, long before he even was a free mason, and all with references to the Old Testament, at least very interesting.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
“And it came to pass” was probably Joseph’s “um.” As he was trying to think of what to make up next.
Thank you for stepping up
So now there is no disputation on that subject!
What is your next observation of disagreement!
I am a convert!
I am defender of this faith !
There is no subject off the table!
I enjoy deep discovery
Especially on the subject of Jesus Christ and the Book of Mormon
I invite you to ask any questions.
Sincerely your brother in Christ
Roger
@@rogerpreble440 brother, Roger you seem like a good person, thank you for your comment. I invite you to read the CES letter and the prequels of the Book of Mormon. If you haven’t read them, don’t be afraid to see the truth, even in the most unexpected places. Do a search for the Late War, the first book of Napoleon, and View of the Hebrews. God bless you.
Amazing how people will believe this book and its leaders without question in fact they're not allowed to question
Galatians 2:15-16 gives us the best definition of Paul's usage of the phrase “the works of the law.” The letter to the Galatians has been about those troublers who are saying that the Gentile Christians must observe the Law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved (cf. Acts 15:1,5).Jun 21, 2015
Did you not know that Curelom and cumom stands for "copy and paste"? ;)
Speaking of which, I can't get my cureloms and cumoms to eat anything. Incidentally, have you happened to see my cat?
Laconically lethal.
thanks for highlighting Mosiah 18:30 . definitely my favorite string of text now.
The keystone fail
Yea how abbout Ala ch7 v10 where it say that Jesus was born in Jerusalem when we all know who was born in Bethlehem
The BOM is so intricate, it pulls together people and events over many centuries. This video is just one more push to try to dissuade a person from reading it. I read it in 1972, wrestled with some things in my life, then I knew I had to face my moral convictions, I knew the book was from a source that was beyond J. Smith, I knew it completely, and at that time I didn't understand completely what the Holy Ghost could do. Later after flooding myself with scriptures, I was able to understand fully the doctrines and the beautiful plan of salvation. I realized so many of Father's children didn't understand with the light and knowledge they had, they did their best, and others just didn't care, they remained being part of the world as I got to know people over the years and tried to explain to them, that the book had the fulness of Christ's gospel in it and that receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after being baptized would enable them, if they lived a good life to always rely on it, to guide them in decisions and warn them. And for 50 years I have lived this way. Read the book the yourself, if you have an honest heart, there's certain things that will ring true, and you will not be able to put it down. There are non-biased bible scholars that once they read the book will say, where did this book come from. It's laughable that Joseph made it up, that's the wisdom with our Father in Heaven. Joseph could barely write a paragraph at that time because his education was so very limited, but he managed to write this, and scribes said he would go and eat lunch and then remember exactly where it was before he left. You learn more about the Father and Son and the role of the Holy Spirit with this book than any other book.
I’m pretty sure everybody here has already read the book. I invite you not to be dissuaded by mind controllers, who may tell you not to read anything outside of the church materials. Thankfully, we don’t live in a dictatorial country that prohibits what books we read. Don’t let your religion dictate what you can read. Start with the CES letter. Your mind will be open soon. Don’t be afraid to look at LDS discussions or Mormon stories podcasts either
I understand what you are saying. I don't know whether or not a conversion necessarily follows reading although I suspect it might be essential to have a full understanding prior to conversion. As far as Joseph Smith not being able to compose a paragraph I mostly am unconvinced of that being true. He might have had limited intellectual capacity. He maybe wasn't well versed in literature and that might be why some people make reference to it but he probably understood enough to make the record relatable. I never completely bought into the premise he was incoherent or incapable of making a readable translation. He was well into his twenties. He knew sufficient to make his presence known and he wasn't completely without schooling.
No ONE has proven or validated the Book of Mormon, not one artifact has been found. You might want read about Santan and all his tactics, he can even turn himself into an angel, and he could make you believe the Book of Mormon is a real book when it is not. There is only one Book of God and that is the bible, it is written by God.
Whoever created this knows nothing about translation
This comment is 100% better than that entire video.
So wait, entire chapters of Isaiah are not in the Book of Mormon?
Okay, Brennant, so tell us what you know about translation. Feel free to use a stone, or a hat, or both if you must!
We'll be over here waiting.
Waiting.
Exactly. In Reformed Egyptian, each verse was exactly one character. We know this from the Egyptian Grammar written by him.
I've been reading the Book of Mormon daily for decades of my now-long life. There is no other book that even comes close in the spiritual power that somehow flows form the book, and the and clarity that it delivers to one's heart and mind. In my life, when I stopped reading it daily, things seemed to start to not go as well or I was not as able to handle as well the things that were taking place. My faith in Christ decreased. When I have returned to reading it daily, I noticed that things in life get easier to handle. My faith in Christ and in our Father in Heaven increases. I can witness that experience. It is the greatest book of which I know.
(I note that you conveniently skip over the question begged of you of who YOU think wrote the Book of Mormon. Before you can legitimately state any "expectations" or "we would expect..." sophistry, perhaps you could tell us who wrote the Book of Mormon - from where did it come. Then maybe we'll be more open to your other comments on what you think the book should or should not be.)
A lot of folks glean spiritual benefits from many books, including the Quaran, Dianetics, the Four Vedas, Talmud, etc.
Joseph Smith was listed as the author in the original edition. His mother admitted he was telling Book of Mormon themed stories with the family before ever penning the book. Take his imagination + View of the Hebrews + King James Bible + whole chapters from Isaiah = Book of Mormon. We know he has a great imagination, just look at his other fraudulent translation, the Book of Abraham.
Joseph Smith and he was shot and killed leaving a jailhouse. Doesn't match the CHRISTIAN bible. 😢. So sorry 😢.
Where is the BOM fruit that would compare to the Bible's fruit?
That’s sad the level of your faith in Christ is based on a book. Especially a book where the ideas were copied from View of the Hebrews, the late war, the first book of Napoleon, and of course, the king James version of the Bible.
Satan has great tactics to keep you from the Word of God and believing in the true Jesus, Jesus is not created, he is eternal. Mormonism has a different God, a different Jesus, which means you may want to check on your salvation.
And it came to pass that I came across another idiot that can leave the church, but can't leave it alone… Lol gotta love the people that apostasies… But just can't leave the church alone😅
Write this sentence 1000 times on the blackboard...
And again verily I say unto you let my Servant Sidney Gilbert plant himself in this place & establish a Store that he may sell Goods without fraud that he may obtain money to buy lands for the good of the Saints & that he may obtain provisions & whatsoever things the disciples may need to plant them in their inheritance & also let my Servant Sidney obtain Licence (Behold here is wisdom & whose readeth let him understand) that he may send- goods also unto the Lamanites even by whom he will as Clerks employed in his service & thus the Gospel may be preached unto them- And again verily I say unto you let my Servant William [W. Phelps] also be [p. [35]]planted in this place & be established as a printer unto the Church & lo! if the world receiveth his writings (behold this is wisdom) let him obtain whatsoever he can obtain in righteousness for the good of the Saints, & let my Servant Oliver [Cowdery] assist him even as I have commanded in whatsoever place I shall appoint unto him to copy & to correct & select that all things may be right before me as it shall be proved by the spirit through him- And thus let those of whom I have spoken be planted in the land of Zion as speedily as can be with their families to do these things even as I have spoken- And now concerning the gathering let the Bishop & the Agent make preparations for those families which have been commanded to come to this land as soon as possible & plant them in their inheritance & unto the residue of both Elders & members further directions shall be given hereafter- Even so Amen.- [p. [36]]
In the book of Alma says Jesus was born in Jerusalem wait wasn't it Bethlehem yes it was
Low intelligence on full display here, or a Ginuwine unwillingness to look at both sides of the story
When Alma wrote those verses, he was in America… He had never been to Jerusalem or to Bethlehem
Bethlehem is approximately 8 miles from the center of Jerusalem
The land of Jerusalem is a correct term… Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem
It's like asking a person where are you from and they say Kansas City
But in reality they live in a suburb of Kansas City
Let's get real, and be honest with your objections
Like I said, you can leave the church, but you just can't leave it alone
@@rogerpreble440 Rebuking Christians for their strong moral integrity and respect for the Only God?
Is that the purpose of the LDS?
@@ts-900
Hey, when people boldly announce lies, then they deserve a bold response… Remember Jesus over through the tables of the money changes
If somebody doesn't stand up for the truth, then the lies perpetuate themselves
I'm simply responding and kind with a little bit of rambunctiousness
In reality, we are both on the same team, fighting evil… I never initiate any derogatory comments about any other faith, but I will defend my faith in the face of face, lies and accusations that have no premise or basis in reality 😁
Why do you insert so many commas, even in purported quotations, where commas do not belong or are not present in the original? Get a grammar checker and please quit using so many grammatically-incorrect commas.
I LOVE the Book of Mormon! I’ve studied the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon for over 40 years. Both, equally, testify if the divinity of Jesus Christ. If you say the Book of Mormon is not true, then the Bible is not true because each one testifies of the other. And if you’ve never taken the time to study the Book of Mormon yourself, and find out for yourself, instead of listening to opinions of others, then you are missing out.
I've studied both. Unlike the Bible, I don't know where the events in the Book of Mormon take place, who its people are, or what language it was written in. When I talk to LDS, they can't even agree if Cumorah/Ramah is the same hill where Joseph found the plates. The LDS church doesn't even teach the truths found in the Book of Mormon, like God is a Spirit (Alma 18:26-28), that God dwells in our hearts (Alma 34:36, D&C 130:3 contradicts that). That God is Supreme Creator (2 Nephi 2:14, Mosiah 4:9, Alma 22:10-11, cf. 18:28-29, Alma 30:44, Mormon 9:11). That the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are One God (2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7). That Jesus IS the Father (Ether 3:14, Alma 11:38-39, Mosiah 15:4, 2 Nephi 11:7, Mosiah 7:27, Original edition: 1 Nephi 11:18,21,32, 13:40, "the Son of" inserted in later editions). That there is only One God (Alma 11:26-29, 35, 14:5). The church removed Lecture 5 from the D&C which taught these same things. The Book of Mormon is a "gateway" to get people in the LDS cult, and then they end up deceiving Saints with teachings that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, God was a man, and is just one of countless deities out there, including a "Heavenly Mother", and if Saints are obedient to the church, they become gods too! The Book of Mormon is silent on the many teachings that separate the LDS church from the rest of Christianity: Aaronic priesthood, Baptism for the dead, Celestial marriage, Exaltation, Heavenly mother, Polytheism, Temple endowments, Three heavens. So what exactly are those who don’t study the Book of Mormon missing?
@@robholden4847 I think what they are missing, to adress your last question, is that they make the Bible work by presupposing inerrancy, meaning, thats a fine way to bend away all the inconsictencies, errors and contradictions we find within the Bible. Not just is the inerrency of the Bible not a biblical teaching, but actually to a great deal rooted in pro-slavery Christians fearing slavery to end, though they felt it was supported in the Bible.
Everyone who looks at all the supposed inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, but at the same time claimes the Bible to be inerrant, meaning to believe the Bible is without error in regards to Science History, politics and much more, has either not ever really read the Bible, nor taken any interest in the academic world outside of evangelism.
The main issue here is that Mormonism believe in modern day revelation, and therefore many things will differ, because otherwise there would be no need for modern day revelation, at least from a LDS viewpoint. So, the real discussion should be about Solar Scriptura, whether the Bible is all we need, and whether the Bible is inerrant, so, I will address that one.
The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible actually originates from the late 19th and early 20th century and mainly served as a attempt to push back against the liberalism and the rationalism of the Enlightenment. The thing is, not just do the authors of the Bible frequently disagree with eachother, you also have Jesus, for example, teach three different and contradictive versions of hell, claim that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world (which it is not), have Paul mix up what was seen and heard, have Matthew quoting Zechariah, whilst saying he is quoting Jeremiah, and then have dudes like Luther and Calvin that had no issue admidting that there were these contradictions, also in relation to the details of the cruxifision and resurrection of Christ.
But also many of the early church fathers did not believe the Bible was without errors. Origin thought there were discrepancies in the gospels like the different details in the crucifixion and Resurrection stories, but he didn't think that they had much theological significance, so they did not matter much to him, sounds like something a Universalist would say. John Christosum also didn't believe the Bible needed to be in harmony with history since most of it was unimportant to the matters of Faith. Even Jerome was unconcerned about some of the discrepancies in the Bible, while there are Christians who believe in biblical inarrancy, who also believe some of the early church fathers also believed in biblical inarrancy.
The way modern Christians understand biblical inherrancy is much different than how early church fathers would have understood it, since the modern way of understanding biblical inerrancy didn't exist in the early church even in the Reformation era there was still not much of an emphasis on biblical inerrancy.
One of the biggest problems in regard to the Scriptures being inherent, univocal and sufficient arises when taking a look at the word "inspired", as it is for used for example in 2 Timothy 3:1-6, which word is originally translated from the Greek "theopneustos". This is especially vital because the meaning of the word "inspired", as we understand it today, meaning that "inspired" defines what "scripture" actually is, or that leads up to the claim that every word of the Bible comes directly from God, only received that meaning at around the 3rd Century CE.
Prior to that, "theopneustos" meant "God-Breathed", in the sense of life-giving and livening, and this is why we see it commonly being used in relation to things like "Springs of water","ointments" and even "sandals". So the basic notion here is that the idea of "inspired" and "God-Breathed" where not ideas that the biblical authors themselves came up with, but actually were were later additions to the Bible.
Most scholars agree that Paul is not even the author of Timoty (and Titus), but that these books were written decades after Pauls death by someone writing in his name, and in this time period, especially if you assign Paul as the author of second Timothy, the texts of the New Testament were not even considered scripture. "The Scriptures" was actually a reference merely to the Jewish Scripures, not the New Testament.
The way I see it, the Bible itself is nowhere asserting anything remotely approximating what we now understand by inerrancy, which is clearly seen by the biblical authors frequently disagreeing with each other.
So, and once we take away the magic veil of the inerrancy of the Bible, we see that many things are not as univocal and inerrant as imposed upon the Bible... Certainly, there are historical backups for things in the Bible, but there are also missing many things... For example, nowhere in egypt literature do we find anything on the red sea story, and if that many people would have died in the manner as described in the Bible, we certainly would have someone talk about it, some dude missing one of his family dudes, for example.
Personally if there is someting I hate, than it is one-sidedness.. I have no problem to admidt that there are issues within Mormonism, that not all things are perfect, and I think it is good to address all these things in a good manner.. but so do I also go about with the Bible, aswell as with anything else.
When we talk about history and facts, the only way it works is when people are always willing to put the date over the dogma, even if it contradicts the own faith, which are the kind of scholars I leatn from to the very most, because they have proven to love truth more than dogma. But there acually are also way more evidences for the Book of Mormon than many want to be there.. Just one example, a few decades ago there were about 200 anachronisms brought forth against the book of Mormon, things that Joseph could not have known, things that were used as evidence for the incrediblity of the Book of Mormon, for example, roads being mentioned in america, of which over 100 of them have now proven to be right..
So when looking at all these things, we will never have a 100 % inerrancy of any scripture, and religion, or any dogma, but Jesus taught how to discern spiritual truth from deception by the fruits it brings forth, making clear, once we know the "good fruit", we will also know the tree is good...
And so I think that herein lies the only way to really know what is of God and what not, and as Paul made clear, these good fruits are neither works, nor faith, not the gifts of the spirit, nor the knowing and understanding of all doctrines and mysteries, but is something that James described as the purest form of religion, which is not found in being theological correct about everything. Just look at the good Samaritian, he also was believe to be pagan, to err in doctrine, and yet he was the one whom Christ considered to be good, because he lived the purest form of religion, doing the will of the father.
So the question should rather be, what are people missing when they see how people come unto Christ by reading the Book of Mormon, living that purest form of religion, still seeking out all its supposed mistakes, whilst having the same thing in a different colour within their own faith and religion?
The Bible, according to current academic consensus, does not teach that it is inerrant, it does not teach "sola scriptura", it does not teach "monotheism" as we understand it today, it does not even teach that Jesus claimed to be God, it contradicts in many places, it is greatly influenced by greco-roman philosophies, you get authors that disagree with eachother in all sorts of placed on all sorts of topics, and yet, you still have faith in Christ.
So how with that, can you deny that others may also come unto Christ, even if by the means of the Book of Mormon?
@@robholden4847 And in addition to my last post, mayby if I get the time I will adress all the issues you brought up, but just one thing that just stuck out to me..
You bring up Alma 18:26 as an argument that the Book of Mormon teaches God to be "a great Spirit". But as with so many things, one look into it's context actually clarifies what this is all about.
Obviusly we have Ammon speak to Lamamite King Lamonie, who was the one believing in "a great spirit", and Ammon was simply trying to explain God to him using Lamonis understanding of God, which actually would fit what was believed amongst the Mayas, so if we asume for a second that is wehre the BOM took place.
It is also intersting in that regard that once Cortez arrived in the americas, the native americans worshipped him as the "white God with beard that once was amongst them, and promised to come back to them"..
Just recently I read a historical book for kids that actually talked about this, kind of facinating I think.
@@robholden4847 I actually took the time to adress all your listed issues. Feel welcome to let me know where I err, because I care, and so anything that helps get closer to the truth is something I welcome.
FIRST: God the „Great Spirit“ (Alma 18:12)
When Ammon taught a Lamanite king named Lamoni, the king did not at first understand what Ammon meant by the concept of “God.” Ammon then compared God to the “Great Spirit,” a divine entity with which Lamoni and his people were apparently familiar (Alma 18:24-28).
This is interesting in so far as that the believe in a „great Spirit“ fits well if we assume a Mesoamerican setting (for example the Maya) for the book of Mormon.
So in other words, this scripture is not teaching that God was or is a mere Spirit.
SECOND: God dwelleth in heart contracition Alma 34:36/D&C 130:3
In Doctrine and Covenents it talks about the „physical“ attributes of God the Father and Jesus Christ, speaking out against the old secratrian notion that they he, with that, dwells in the hearts of men, whilst Alma is talking about „the Spirit of God dwelling in them“ (see verse 35).
THIRD: God is Suprene Creator
I am not quite sure what excactly here the point is that you are trying to make, but yes, LDS believe God to be the creator of all things, the creator (organizer) of heaven and earth, the creator of all living things. Now, if you want to indicate that this means that God literally created everything out of nothing, then no, that is not whet LDS believe, but also not what these scriptures are indicating.
I get that this may be a bit of a silly example, but when you eat lunch, and afterwards tell your friend that you „ate all food“, it doesnt mean you actually ate all foor in existence, but you ate all food „in relevance to you“.. and so to say that „God is the creator of all things“, can also mean that „God is the creator of all things in relation to us, our world, our universe“, and so forth.
More interestingly is mayby that creation ex nihilo is not in the Bible, not according to academic consensus.
The academic consensus here is, that it rather is a invention of the second century CE. The idea itself arose within debates between Christians, Gnostics and other Greco-Roman thinkers, specifically about the rationality of the resurrection,
Ultimatly Christians came up with the idea that matter is not separate from deity, but that matter has to be a product of deity, meaning that God is responsible for the creation of all matter, which layed the foundation of the doctrine that the whole universe was created out of nothing, which was a direct rejection of more conventional Greco-Roman wisdom, which taught nothing being able to come out of nothing, but that was a handy christian identity marker and also allowed them to say:
"Our God is bigger than yours."
„In the beginning“, which originates from the hebrew word Вereshit, ia actually used around six times within the hebrew Bible, and never referes to In the beginning of nothing, but instead always refers to In the beginning of something, for example to the beginning of the reign of a King. This is something most scholars agree on, which is why many more schloolarly modern translation do translate Genesis 1:1 as temporal clause:
“When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was „Tohuwabohu “.
„Tohuwabohu“ (hebrew), which means something like „trackless expanse of the deseret“ or „desolate and empty”, is a poetic couplet that is probably not used so much for any kind of semantic specificity, as for the rhyme.
FOURTH: Jesus Christ and God are one God (2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7)
In case your are using these scriptures to show that the Book of Mormon does not support the idea of God the Father and Jesus Christ being seperate beings, but yet still one God in purpose, then this is not very convincing for several reasons:
1. We have Jesus being WITH the Father in 3 Nephi 9:15
2. We have Jesus the „Name of the Father IN HIM“ in 3 Nephi 9:15
3. We have Jesus praying to the Father (3 Nephi 17:15)
4. We have a resurrected Christ „go unto the Father (3 Nephi 26:15)
5. We have Nephi hear the voice of the Father and the Son seperatly
6. We have the Book of Moses, which was written just a few years after the BOM, where we have God the Father, Jesus Christ and Lucifer have a threefold conversation
7. Besides that do we also have early sources outside the BOM confirming the teachings of Joseph Smith on the Godhead, for example David Withmer wrote about it in 1831
8. Also we have D&C 76:20-24 adressing this written in 1832
9. And from the Bible we have Jesus clarifying the „Oneness“ of him and the Father, when stating that „we are to become one with eachother, even as he is one with the Father“, which I hope does not mean we are all ending up becoming one in essence.
10. And we have academics agree that when it states in „John 1:1“ that „and the Word was God“, that it correctly should tanslate as „and the Word was Deity“.
I think I eplxained that to you elsewhere, but point 2, where it states that Jesus has „Gods name in him“, is a clear reference to the hebrew tradition of bearing Gods divine name, acting in his name, even speaking „as Adonai“, and yet still remain a seperate being, as we see with „The Angel of the Lord“ in Exodus 3, Exodus 23, as in many other places in Judges, where the „Angel of the Lord“ also has Gods name „in him“, even having been given the authority to forgive sins.
And so when we read the Bible with that understanding, we also see that Jesus actually tries to distinguish himsel in every instance from God the Father (God the Father being the only good, Jesus asking that the bitter cup may pass, and so forth).
FIFTH: Jesus is the Father (Ether 3:14, Alma 11:38-39, Mosiah 15:4, 2 Nephi 11:7, Mosiah 7:27
As far as I see it, there are three instances where Christ is considered to be „the Father“
1. Jesus being the „Father of Creation“
2. Jesus being the „Father of Salvation“
3. Jesus being the „bearer of the Divine Name of the Father“, having „his Fathers name in him“, as explained above, as in referece to „the Father“ also being kind of a „title“, meaning, sometimes we may have instances where Jesus takes on the divine image of the Father, and we could not tell the difference.
SIXTH: Jesus and Lucifer are Brothers
In that regard LDS believe that:
1. God is the Father of all Spirits (Hebrews 12:9)
2. That there is a Spirit in every man (Job 32:8
3. That Angels have also Spirits (Hebrews 1:13-14)
4. And that Jesus also has a Spirit Luke 23:25
So when LDS use the term of spiritually being „brothers and sister“, then in regard to all of us being spiritually created by God, but certainly not to indicate that Jesus and Lucifer are best buddies.
SEVENTH: God once was a men
This obviously is related to modern day revelation, though we also know that we do not really have much revelation been given on what happened excactly before we were all created by God, and so much remains speculation. The debate in this case should rather be about „Sola Scriptura“ and whether there is such a thing as modernday revelation, which would take too much space now.
EIGHT: Heavenly Mother
Interesting point. A lot of people don't know that Scholars overwhelmingly agree that throughout the entire history of the Bible God was understood to have a physical body and most Scholars also think that prior to around the 8th or 7th Century BCE God also had a wife. So, that is not taken from LDS sources, but from public studies and scholars who talk about this.
NINE: The believe to become Gods
The idea to become Gods is not something that is taught every sunday at church, aswell as that only a few Prophets talked about it in a manner that seems to heat the conversation. The primarely focus at church is about following Jesus Christ, and to become like God by following Jesus Christ. When we look at Christ, he, bein God himself, said that whosoever wants to be the greatest, shall serve, as he set the perfect example.
I get that the idea to become like God seems odd or offensive to many, but once we understand that God is love, that God is truth, that God is the greatest servent of us all, that he gave his life for us, and that he promised us that we shall be perfected in love and truth, that we can and shall be joint heirs with him, receive of his glory even as he received of the fathers glory, that idea also becomes at least a different touch to it.
So whosoever „desires to be a God“, does not care at all about being a God, but rather cares about following the example of Christ, having faith that through his atonement, we shall be perfected.
TEN: The Book of Mormon is silent about: Aaronic priesthood, Baptism for the dead, Celestial marriage, Exaltation, Heavenly mother, Polytheism, Temple endowments, Three heavens.
Once again it comes back to the believe in modernday revelation, where precept upon precept is revealed. Mormon himself stated that he held back many informations which shall be revealed later according to the faith of the people (3 Nephi 26:8-11)
So, just because topics are not adressed in the BOM, does not mean they are wrong.
And as a side-note, Denver Snuffer, no more a member of the LDS church but a strong believer of the BOM points out in one of his Books how the BOM actually teaches the Endowment in the first chapter of Nephi, and goes into detail about that deeper level of symbolism.
And also as side-note, we also have Don Bradley, who left the church and came back later on, lay out interestingly how the First Vision already contained hints and symbolisms of the temple rituals, long before he even was a free mason, and all with references to the Old Testament, at least very interesting.
@@SimonDaumMusic The Cortez / Quetzalcoatl story is a myth. Look up the article "The Real Story of the ‘Bearded God’ Named Quetzalcoatl"