Bible Vs. Book Of Mormon

[bluebell]

The biggest difference between main stream Christianity and the Mormon faith is that Mormons teach three distinct persons and three distinct gods, while main stream Christianity go along with 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and Mark 12:28-29 and say three distinct persons but only ONE GOD.

 

1X1X1 = 1 God is Christianity

 

1+1+1 =  3 gods is Mormonism

 

This is not the topic of this thread.

[JLHPROF]

The biggest difference between main stream Christianity and the Mormon faith is that Mormons teach three distinct persons and three distinct gods, while main stream Christianity go along with 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and Mark 12:28-29 and say three distinct persons but only ONE GOD.

 

1X1X1 = 1 God is Christianity

 

1+1+1 =  3 gods is Mormonism

 

Please stick to my thread topic - the increase of usage of the Book of Mormon by those teaching.

We are all familiar with your (incorrect) interpretation of Book of Mormon scripture and your pet theories about it.  They can be the topic of another thread.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

I thought the topic was Book of Mormon versus the Bible ? Which neither one agrees with Mormonism

 

You are wearing out your welcome. We call these posts drive-by posts. You are not engaging in conversation you are only dropping bombs. The only reason you are still in this thread is to give you a warning and you may not get another one.

[JLHPROF]

I thought the topic was Book of Mormon versus the Bible ? Which neither one agrees with Mormonism

 

Well now you get to be mistaken twice in the same post.

Please stick to the topic of increased use of the Book of Mormon to teach instead of derailing the thread.

Edited February 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

The biggest difference between main stream Christianity and the Mormon faith is that Mormons teach three distinct persons and three distinct gods, while main stream Christianity go along with 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and Mark 12:28-29 and say three distinct persons but only ONE GOD.

 

1X1X1 = 1 God is Christianity

 

1+1+1 =  3 gods is Mormonism

 

 

You must be mistaken. 

 

You see, the Bible is like a single "point", and from it lines in any direction may be drawn.  Hence, many different religions with different interpretations of doctrine.

 

But God gave us the Book of Mormon, which acts as a second "point".  And with these two "points", it is only possible to draw a single line (i.e. doctrine or Church).  Therefore there is not confusion.

 

That is why there are many churches that use the Bible, but only one that uses both the Bible and Book of Mormon, and why there are no disagreements about doctrine in that Church.*

 

It's simply marvelous and marvelously simple.

 

*I didn't make that up.

[The Nehor]

Book of Mormon wins by KO in 10th round.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It's simply marvelous and marvelously simple.

 

Works out even more fascinatingly, if we add in the Koran.

 

LDS worthies may not be citing Mohammed as much as Moroni,

but Dan C. Peterson alone jacks up the average to all time highs.

 

UD

[Coreyb]

You must be mistaken. 

 

You see, the Bible is like a single "point", and from it lines in any direction may be drawn.  Hence, many different religions with different interpretations of doctrine.

 

But God gave us the Book of Mormon, which acts as a second "point".  And with these two "points", it is only possible to draw a single line (i.e. doctrine or Church).  Therefore there is not confusion.

 

That is why there are many churches that use the Bible, but only one that uses both the Bible and Book of Mormon, and why there are no disagreements about doctrine in that Church.*

 

It's simply marvelous and marvelously simple.

 

*I didn't make that up.

Hahahahahahahahaha

[rockpond]

You must be mistaken. 

 

You see, the Bible is like a single "point", and from it lines in any direction may be drawn.  Hence, many different religions with different interpretations of doctrine.

 

But God gave us the Book of Mormon, which acts as a second "point".  And with these two "points", it is only possible to draw a single line (i.e. doctrine or Church).  Therefore there is not confusion.

 

That is why there are many churches that use the Bible, but only one that uses both the Bible and Book of Mormon, and why there are no disagreements about doctrine in that Church.*

 

It's simply marvelous and marvelously simple.

 

*I didn't make that up.

 

Ahhh... yes.  Takes me right back to my mission days. 

[Robert F. Smith]

If you go to http://byu-professor.tumblr.com you will find out why most Mormons do not like quoting from the Book of Mormon

How do you square that with the data displayed on the popularity of Book of Mormon quotations from 1885 to 2015?  Are you saying that there is a major disjuncture between what LDS leaders quote and what the general membership quotes, and can you support that with any statistical data?

[Robert F. Smith]

I thought the topic was Book of Mormon versus the Bible ? Which neither one agrees with Mormonism

.............................................  

If you are interested in why you are very mistaken here (on both counts), have a look at my “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” paper presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), forthcoming in Element, and online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH#scribd .  I even discuss the theology of Thomas Aquinas therein.

[halconero]

I was dismayed to recently discover that the missionaries here don't carry a Bible with them, don't quote from the Bible, and don't use the Bible at all when teaching.

This is a very bad thing in my view.

Although the Book of Mormon is great etc, the Bible is just breathtaking in my view. When I start reading the gospels I just can't put the book down!

I did this a bit on my mission. Specifically, when going into an area to tract I would ditch my backpack in the car, grab a copy of the Book of Mormon and a couple pamphlets, and go tracting. Now, I actually did use the Bible, and maybe I was wrong in this, but if I needed a hard copy for whatever reason I would actually ask the person if I could just use theirs.

I actually found it more effective to preach scripture from the Bible using a copy the person was already familiar with, and it helped build confidence. Usually I would just give them the copy of the Book of Mormon I was carrying with me.

[cinepro]

I did this a bit on my mission. Specifically, when going into an area to tract I would ditch my backpack in the car, grab a copy of the Book of Mormon and a couple pamphlets, and go tracting. Now, I actually did use the Bible, and maybe I was wrong in this, but if I needed a hard copy for whatever reason I would actually ask the person if I could just use theirs.

I actually found it more effective to preach scripture from the Bible using a copy the person was already familiar with, and it helped build confidence. Usually I would just give them the copy of the Book of Mormon I was carrying with me.

 

Of course, we would have to wonder how this could be enacted with modern missionaries using iPads.

 

"Elder, delete the shortcut to the Bible from your home screen.  You don't need it."

 

 

 

And if you think about it, the opposite would be possible:

 

Elder: "Mr. (Invstigator), would you please read Amos 3:7 for me?" (Hands investigator his tablet).

 

Gator: "Well Elder, I'd like to know which version of the Bible you use?"

 

Elder: "Which one would you like?  I have 7 translations available, and if I can hop on your WiFi, we can check over 40 different versions."

Edited February 18, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

It's interesting to see that not only do we tend to quote the BOM more, but we also quote scripture more now in general than we did in the past.

 

That raises the question of the total number of talks being culled for both 30 year periods.  I didn't check, but until 1977, General Conference was actually three days, with a third day set aside for welfare meetings and other special sessions.  If these were included in the BYU data, then there could have been many, many more talks in the 1955 - 1985 period.

 

Edit to add: I checked.  The Friday sessions are included. (Click "General Conference" in the Table of Contents in the middle pane, then select any year before 1977).

 

Edit to add: It appears that in the 1980s they start to include the General RS and YW meetings, as well as the early morning Welfare meetings on Saturday mornings, so it's not as big a difference as there otherwise would have been.

Edited February 18, 2015 by cinepro

[carbon dioxide]

 

1X1X1 = 1 God is Christianity

The problem I see in that formula is that in that equation, ever "1" is equal and exactly the same in every respect.  So if that is the case and Jesus died and has a resurrected body, God the Father and the Holy Ghost also died and have a resurrected body.  Any degree of difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, even the slightest difference invalidates that formula. 

[Uncle Dale]

 

...and the Holy Ghost also died and have a resurrected body.

 

 

That illustrious apostolic (and presidential) worthy,

Heber C. Kimball said that the Holy Ghost has a body

just like any other god (or man).

 

Whether Elder Kimball taught that it was a resurrected

body, I'll leave for someone more learned than I to explain.

 

UD

[LDSGuy]

I bet the most quoted scripture from PoGP is Moses 1:39.

[canard78]

It's interesting to see that not only do we tend to quote the BOM more, but we also quote scripture more now in general than we did in the past.

 

Possibly not a correct assumption. It may just be that there's a larger base of content in the later years.

[bluebell]

Possibly not a correct assumption. It may just be that there's a larger base of content in the later years.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Calm]

Maybe we have more hours of talks given at conference these days than in the past so it is just volume that has gone up, not percentage.

 

Here is a description of what is included in the index:

 

Welcome to the LDS Scripture Citation Index. This index links from scriptures to the general conference talks, Journal of Discourses speeches, and writings in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that cite those scriptures.  So, for example, suppose you want to know who has cited 1 Ne. 3:7 in general conference; click on the Book of Mormon link at the left and scroll down to 1 Ne. 3; there you'll find the answer.  Who has quoted Matt. 5:48?  Use the New Testament index to find out.

We have indexed the scriptures cited by speakers in LDS General Conference between 1942 and the present, and those cited by speakers recorded in the Journal of Discourses between 1839 and 1886.  The citations in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith come from the special edition,Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Richard C. Galbraith and published by Deseret Book in 1993 (ISBN 0875796478).

[canard78]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Cal explained it too, but to clarify, we have a raw count of mentions but we don't have the base it's taken from.

If the later time period is taking a read of a higher volume (base) of talks the raw count might be higher, without a higher frequency of citations.

It's also possible that the citation system has been more sensitive in later years (depending on how the citations have been coded). Sometimes a conference talk these days will footnote and reference a scripture without the speaker saying they are directly quoting a scripture. If those have been included in later sources but not earlier it would also increase the base.

Don't worry... I'm being a research nerd (it's my full time job). You could be absolutely right. It may genuinely be the case that there's a higher frequency of using all scriptures... It's just not able to be known from just the data available... we'd need a base too.

[canard78]

If you're really interested, the data is here:

BYU Scripture Citation Index

Having clicked through to the sources, these are slightly stretched citations. E.g., from a Joseph Smith sermon:

Every spirit, or vision, or singing is not of God. The Devil is an orator. He is powerful. He took our Savior onto a pinnacle of the Temple, [Matt. 4:5] and kept him in the wilderness for forty days. [Matt. 4:2] The gift of discerning spirits will be given to the Presiding Elder. Pray for him that he may have this gift. Speak not in the gift of tongues without understanding it, or without interpretation. The Devil can speak in tongues: the Adversary will come with his work. He can tempt all classes—can speak in English or Dutch. Let no one speak in tongues, unless he interpret, except [1 Cor. 14:13,28] by the consent of the one who is placed to preside; then he may discern or interpret, or another may. Let us seek for the glory of Abraham, Noah, Adam, the Apostles, who have communion with these things, and [D&C 107:19] then we shall be among that number when Christ comes. [D&C 1:24] [Ether 12:39]

Some of these are not direct references to the scriptural source and we don't know for certain that Joseph was thinking of Ether 12:39 when talking about the second coming.

As an aside, it's quite interesting to filter the search by name and see the differences.

Edited February 21, 2015 by canard78

[Robert F. Smith]

Well then, the very first point there addressed has to do with Mormons

and the Trinity of mainstream Christianity.

..........................................................  

Not that I am here trying to defend the book nor the LDS Church, please

understand * -- but I find the topic interesting and am always curious to

hear others attempt to inject mainstream Christian trinitarianism into the book.

 

UD

 

The biggest difference between main stream Christianity and the Mormon faith is that Mormons teach three distinct persons and three distinct gods, while main stream Christianity go along with 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44, Mormon 7:7 and Mark 12:28-29 and say three distinct persons but only ONE GOD.

....................................................................   

The mainstream Christian Trinity was not  formally invented until three centuries after the death of Jesus, just before the Council of Nicea, when the NT began to be interpreted in a wholly new way in line with paganism: That is, with both Greek Platonism, and with ancient Egyptian theology on hypostatic union -- which the Christians developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]).  As pointed out by the late Klaus Baer, Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one.   Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.  “The divine” is a monophysite substance and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity.

 

Both God and the Holy Spirit are described anthropomorphically in the Book of Mormon.  In that context, it is not possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head – one God (II Nephi 31:21, Jacob 4:5, Alma 11:44, III Nephi 11:32, 35-36, Mormon 7:7, Ether 12:41, Moroni 10:34).  Formal language of cross-identfication (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that “the will of the Son” is “swallowed up in the will of the Father” (Mosiah 15:7). 

 

Paulsen, David L., and Brett McDonald, “Joseph Smith and the Trinity: An Analysis and Defense of the Social Model of the Godhead,” Faith and Philosophy, 25/1 (January 2008): 47-74.

 

Picht, Georg, “The God of the Philosophers,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 48/1 (1980), 61-79.  Online at http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVIII/1/61.abstract  .

 

Samuelson, Norbert, "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27.

 

Edited February 21, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Wasn't 2 Nephi 31:21 written in 556 BC so we have the Trinity formula 800 years before NICEA  

[JLHPROF]

Wasn't 2 Nephi 31:21 written in 556 BC so we have the Trinity formula 800 years before NICEA

 

Do you just never listen?  The MOD's have warned you to stop with this.  And I 've repeatedly asked you not to derail my thread topic.

 

As for your quote:

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

 

It is your definition of "one God" that is flawed.  The Nephite's knew that.  "One God" in this instance refers to Godhead.

Just as a Bishop and his two counselors form a Bishopric.  There is no evidence that they believed this "one God" to be some weird alien kind of 3 in 1 entity.

 

Your trinitarian claims about the Book of Mormon involve misinterpreting the text, just as traditional Christianity misinterprets the Bible to arrive at their trinitiarian claims. 

Edited February 23, 2015 by JLHPROF