I studied the Mormon religion for many years. I’ve read the BoM cover to cover, the Pearl of Great Price and D&C. Never felt a burning sensation in my bosom.
I concluded that Joesph Smith made it all up. Joe’s mother tells in her autobiography a story of Young Joe sitting at the kitchen table entertaining the rest of the family with tales of ancient kingdoms, complete with characters and detailed descriptions of their customs and weapons. Sound familiar?
If it is as accurate as you say why has it been revised multiple times? I know the Holy Bible is written in "easy to read" form but at least the message is the same in each Bible. The Mormans have gone through and changed what they wrote. That doesn't sound prophetic or accurate. It sounds like a cult.........oh my bad, it is a cult. -Z
I know the Holy Bible is written in "easy to read" form but at least the message is the same in each Bible. The Mormans have gone through and changed what they wrote.
pssst. different bibles say different things.
really. not only is there revision between books of the bible (see 1Ch 21:1 and 2Sa 24:1, and psalms 14 adn 53), but different translations, editions, and even manuscripts of the bible say different things. the catholic and kjv editions don't even have the same number of books, and there's two entirely different versions of jeremiah.
Stinkin Catholics.......... My point is the Book of Mormon is a crock. It is made up and when there is an item that doesn't mesh they make a change. What I say is that the Bible (as a whole) is the same message from one to the other. There may be some small variations but they basically say the same thing. The BOM has made complete changes over the years, which leads me to believe that the book has no value. -Z
When I said "the Bible (as a whole)is the same message from one to another, I wasn't refering to the books that make up the bible i.e. lamentations,numbers, and mathew. I was saying an NIV and KJV and so on may be differing on a few items in how they are translated but the give the same message or story. The Mormans doesn't. If you picked up the first BOM and another 30 years later and another 50 years later they would have alot of completely different ideas and beliefs. Understand what I'm saying? -Z
When I said "the Bible (as a whole)is the same message from one to another, I wasn't refering to the books that make up the bible i.e. lamentations,numbers, and mathew. I was saying an NIV and KJV and so on may be differing on a few items in how they are translated but the give the same message or story. The Mormans doesn't. If you picked up the first BOM and another 30 years later and another 50 years later they would have alot of completely different ideas and beliefs. Understand what I'm saying?
yes, but it's still wrong. not because the bom doesn't change -- i don't know the answer to that. but because the bible DOES. the internal inconsistencies are evidence of this, and the fact that original messages are probably preserved, even if modified.
and SOMETIMES we catch modifications between existing manuscripts. here's on example:
quote:Deuteronomy 32:8,9 (JPS - Masoretic)
When the Most High gave nations their homes And set the divisions of man, He fixed the boundaries of peoples In relation Israel's numbers. For the LORD'S portion is His people, Jacob his own allotment.
unexciting verse, i know. but let's read what it's saying. when god divided the nations (at babel, in genesis 11), he made the same number of countries as the number of israelites. one israelite, one country. except israel, israel belongs to god. straightforward, right?
so how many countries were there? --- the same number as the number of israelites: ZERO. jacob hadn't been born yet, let alone fathered a nation. and it can't be refering to literal sons of jacob either, a figurative way of saying "twelve" in effect, because i'm sure the torah itself names a lot more than 12 other nations.
here's the solution to our problem with this verse. the dead sea scrolls and the septuagint (which are older than the masoretic text) say something to the effect of:
quote:He fixed the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the Sons of God.
subtitle change, BIG difference in meaning. what is the verse saying now? the nations are divided up according to divine beings, one for each son of god, and one for yhwh. let's a go a few steps further. this verse seems to indicate that author was fine with something called henotheism: the idea that we have one god, but other having their's is acceptable. sons, in hebrew, often means members of a group. "man" in the verse above is literally "sons of adam (man)" and israelites is "sons of israel." so "sons of god" could mean members of the group gods -- a hebrew pantheon of sorts, each nation with a patron god to watch over it. the difference with israel is that their god is the strongest, and his name is yhwh.
now, at some point this made some rabbis itch. and some overtly polytheistic verses such as this were modified. even today, my jps bible refuses to correctly translate the sons of god, because it's too polytheistic for them.
so yes, sometimes the message DOES change, and the proof is in the manuscripts.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 01-04-2005 02:41 AM
Here's the thing. The whole Book of Mormon thing has no real historical evidence for it, as the Bible does (at least much of it), and the story of Joseph Smith and the belief in polygamy, etc,...just seem false.
But is there a presence with it?
Yes, and there is spirituality and many real Christians, I suspect.
But the best thing the Mormons have going for them is that for the most part, they live very godly, family oriented, dedicated lives, or it sure seems that way looking at the ones I have known, and for that fact alone, I give them the benefit of the doubt as to being real Christians.
I think the Book of Mormon, though, is probably a fantasy created by Joseph Smith, and there are some skeletons in the Mormon history closet.
quote:But the best thing the Mormons have going for them is that for the most part, they live very godly, family oriented, dedicated lives,
The only members of a mormon's family that matters to the mormon church are the mormons in that family.
Any non-mormon family members are excluded from important events like wedding ceremonies.
This happened to my friend's parents, brother, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc when she converted to mormonism and then married into a mormon family.
Not a single one of her relations were allowed to attend the wedding ceremony. That is terribly cruel to the family, if you ask me, and smacks a little of the chrurch trying to become more important to the convert than her own flesh and blood family.
Well, I never said there wasn't some cultish aspects to Mormonism. But they appear to live very dedicated and seeming Christian lives overall.
My daughter is friends with a Mormon girl, and she (my 15 year old) claims they sound a lot like me! Don't know if that's good or bad, but that one family and some others I have met over the years seem very committed, prayerful, etc,...
But anytime you have to create a new Bible to support the movement, well, that's suspicious, especially if the new Bible is suppossed to be about events no one living ever saw.
New books were added to the Bible as God moved in history. I would not necessarily a priori discount the concept of new scriptures, but the Book of Mormon??? I don't see it.
But give credit where credit is due.
This message has been edited by randman, 05-26-2005 10:20 PM