Is Moroni 10:4 worded wrong?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

.................................I did not know the Bible was the word of God until I got a testimony of the Book of Mormon.  That's because the Book of Mormon testifies of the divinity of the Bible.  And having obtained a spiritual reveal of the BoM's veracity as the Word of God, one is compelled to accept the Bible likewise.  

To put it in mathematical terms, if A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If you destroy my testimony of the Book of Mormon, then I lose the Bible as a divine document.  And vice versa.

Yes, and as I have argued on this board, the more preposterous the circumstances of the origin and reception of the Book of Mormon seems, the less likely it is to be authentic.  That is, the more improbable it seems, the more weight it carries when the preponderance of forensic evidence can nevertheless be marshaled in its favor.  That is according to Bayes' Theorem of likelihood.

So, whether you apply the epistemology of Alma 32, or of Moroni 10, or the assemblage of scientific evidence, a positive result does buttress belief in the Bible -- for which none of the avaiiable forensic evidence can establish the historicity of any of the biblical miracles, no more than it can for Homeric Epic..  The Book of Mormon actually comes to the rescue of the Bible precisely because it is so preposterous and can't possibly be true, and yet the preponderance of forensic evidence makes it likely to be true (which is impossible).

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, theplains said:

It's great that one does not have to pray about the Bible. Truth does not depend on what you feel about
it.  ................................................

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

One does not have to pray about anything, of course.  We have free choice.  However, if you truly want to know whether the Bible is true, you can in fact ask in accordance with Jesus' advice in Luke 11:9-10, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

John 16:13, "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."  1 Cor 12:3, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."  1 John 5:6, " it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth."

It was thus no accident that the young Protestant boy, Joseph Smith, did ask in accordance with the advice of Jesus' brother James (Jas 1:5-6):  "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.  But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

Can feeling be involved?  Of course:  “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Lk 24:32; cf. Rom 8:16).

By what means does the answer come?  2 Peter 1:20-21, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."  (cf. Luke 2:25-27)

Yup, via the Holy Spirit.  2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 

Why do Protestants resist this truth?  1 Cor 2:14, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am sure that you would agree with me that Rory is one such.  Has anyone even hinted that he must accept the Mormon faith in order to be considered sincere?  Of course not.  We already know him to be a man of great faith and sincerity, whom I fully expect to see in the Celestial Kingdom

No no no!  Rory is not going to the celestial kingdom with you -- he's gonna hang out with me in the Beatific Vision!

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

No no no!  Rory is not going to the celestial kingdom with you -- he's gonna hang out with me in the Beatific Vision!  

Well, maybe they'll let me drop by and visit you guys -- especially if my assumptions about the hereafter are less correct than yours.

Reminds me of the story some people tell about dying, going to heaven, and being shown around by Saint Peter.  One person in that group asked, "But where is Hell?"  St Peter motioned him to come to a nice overlook and pointed down.  That same person then remarked, "But it is so green and well-cultivated!"  St Peter took a quick look and made a sharp observation:  "It's those darned Mormons again."  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, maybe they'll let me drop by and visit you guys -- especially if my assumptions about the hereafter are less correct than yours.

Reminds me of the story some people tell about dying, going to heaven, and being shown around by Saint Peter.  One person in that group asked, "But where is Hell?"  St Peter motioned him to come to a nice overlook and pointed down.  That same person then remarked, "But it is so green and well-cultivated!"  St Peter took a quick look and made a sharp observation:  "It's those darned Mormons again."  

I'm glad this thread is not doom and gloom. I didn't bring this topic up to be negative like someone has mentioned, I really wanted some opinions on how it was to be read. 

Please feel free to use it how you want and I need comic relief so be my guest.

[theplains]

On 22/04/2017 at 5:24 AM, Stargazer said:

If you destroy my testimony of the Book of Mormon, then I lose the Bible as a divine document.  And vice versa.

We don't need a testimony of the Book of Mormon to have a testimony or faith in Christ.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 21/04/2017 at 9:49 PM, bluebell said:

How do you know the Bible is true?

For one thing, we have some archaeological and geographical evidences. The biggest support for
the existence of the church is the resurrection of Christ.  No resurrection, then no church. Believing
in the Bible is not 100% faith in believing what cannot be seen or deduced.

An atheist can say that the Bible is false, but truth doesn't rely on one's belief.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 22/04/2017 at 5:24 AM, Stargazer said:

You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, and you can't prove any other miracle recounted in the Bible.  It's fine if you want to believe in the divinity of the Bible as a matter of faith, but you don't know that it's true.

The church can only exist because Jesus rose from the dead.  The fearful disciples became bold in preaching
the gospel only after they knew Jesus had been resurrected.  The Koran has so many stories which contradict
the Bible.

Thanks,
Jim

Edited April 26, 2017 by theplains

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, theplains said:

We don't need a testimony of the Book of Mormon to have a testimony or faith in Christ.

Thanks,
Jim

No, but you need a testimony or faith in Jesus Christ to receive his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

He can tell you he inspired prophets on both continents to write both books.

[theplains]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

No, but you need a testimony or faith in Jesus Christ to receive his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

He can tell you he inspired prophets on both continents to write both books.

The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents who had to progress into becoming
a God.  

At one point of his life Joseph Smith taught, "Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is
from everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Doctrine and Covenants 61:1).
"Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ"
(D&C 39:1). "For the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior. From eternity to eternity, he is the same"
(D&C 76:1,4).  The Book of Mormon even calls Jesus the Eternal God (see title page and 2 Nephi 26:12). In the
Gospel Principles teacher’s manual, “eternal” is defined as meaning “everlasting, without beginning or end."

The Book of Mormon (in Mosiah 3:5) even says about Jesus: "The Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is
from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a
tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the
dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases".

The LDS Church apostatized from these teachings.

Jim

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

For one thing, we have some archaeological and geographical evidences. The biggest support for
the existence of the church is the resurrection of Christ.  No resurrection, then no church. Believing
in the Bible is not 100% faith in believing what cannot be seen or deduced.

An atheist can say that the Bible is false, but truth doesn't rely on one's belief.

Thanks,
Jim

These statements are demonstrably false though.

Statement 1-archaelogical and geographical evidence supports the bible as being the word of God or "true".

• No it doesn't. Archaeological and geographical evidence supports that the places mentioned in the bible actually existed, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the spiritual claims in the bible actually happened and the words are from God.  For example, there is archaeological and geographical evidence for the Troy.  That doesn't mean that the Illiad (the book which talks about Troy) is true or that Zeus exists.

Statement 2-no resurrection, no church.

• There are lots of churches that don't have any belief in the resurrection of Christ, yet, they still exist.  Islam exists, for example.  So does Buddhism and Hinduism.  They don't believe in the resurrection, yet there they are, happily existing.

There's got to be other reasons that you believe the bible is true because the ones you've given so far don't make a lot of sense.

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, theplains said:

The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents who had to progress into becoming
a God.  

At one point of his life Joseph Smith taught, "Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is
from everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Doctrine and Covenants 61:1).
"Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ"
(D&C 39:1). "For the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior. From eternity to eternity, he is the same"
(D&C 76:1,4).  The Book of Mormon even calls Jesus the Eternal God (see title page and 2 Nephi 26:12). In the
Gospel Principles teacher’s manual, “eternal” is defined as meaning “everlasting, without beginning or end."

The Book of Mormon (in Mosiah 3:5) even says about Jesus: "The Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is
from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a
tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the
dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases".

The LDS Church apostatized from these teachings.

Jim

You apparently just do not understand how that is the same Jesus.

We are all everlasting. None of us came from out of nothing or nowhere. So being everlasting is no big deal.

The big deal is that he came down here to save us, and he did!!!

[Atheist Mormon]

On 4/21/2017 at 0:38 AM, Tacenda said:

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

I saw someone comment on FB about this. What do you all think? This brings back memories of when I was in a Primary Presidency years ago and we centered a primary activity on this scripture and reading the BoM and getting the families involved. When we reached the goal, we planted a pine tree near the church building. It's probably huge now. But back then the way this scripture is worded went right over my head. Does it bother anyone that it states to pray to know if the things are not true? Or does the next sentence take care of it?

 

I always thought so, it doesn't give you any other possibility but vouch for the truthfulness of the BoM.....

[Alan]

It does look awkward.

But it's similar to saying "is it not the case?" when we really mean "is it the case?".

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

For one thing, we have some archaeological and geographical evidences. The biggest support for
the existence of the church is the resurrection of Christ.  No resurrection, then no church. Believing
in the Bible is not 100% faith in believing what cannot be seen or deduced.

An atheist can say that the Bible is false, but truth doesn't rely on one's belief.

Thanks,
Jim

It is not often that I run into statements that so thoroughly place carts before horses.  And this is the particular instance:

The biggest support for the existence of the church is the resurrection of Christ.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?  To start with, I'm not disputing the existence of the church.  Any more than I am disputing the fact that the sky is blue during the daytime, leaving aside unusual meteorological phenomena.

But let's pretend for a moment that your tortured statement actually makes sense.  Put in other words, you're saying that the existence of the church depends upon the actuality of Christ's resurrection.  So let's take it home: prove that Christ was resurrected.  Where's the evidence for this?  Is there any archaeological evidence that Christ was resurrected after he was crucified?  I'll answer the question: NO.  None whatsoever.  I happen to believe that he was resurrected, but my conviction doesn't come via archaeological evidence -- a good thing, since there is none.

So, since Christ's resurrection cannot be proven, the existence of the church (by your statement above) is called into question.  Which is absurd, since presumably the church does exist.  I'd still like to know what you mean by "the church", however.  I think I've lost count on how many there are -- and here I am assuming that by "church" you mean Christian churches: Roman Catholic, Coptic, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Eastern Orthodox, Worldwide Church of God, Church of England, and so on.  I'm also assuming you wouldn't add the LDS church to the list, but I'm not sure why not.

But if you still insist upon your turned-on-its-head statement, I have another one for you, with exactly as much validity:

• The biggest support for the existence of the Caliphate is the visit of Gabriel to Muhammed and the revelation of the Quran.  And there's plenty of archaeological evidence to support the Quran, too.  So is the Quran revealed by God, or not?  Is Muhammed a Prophet of God (the last one BTW), or not?
• And let's not forget Buddhism!  The biggest support for Buddhism is the Enlightenment of Gautama Siddhartha.  So shave your head, and report to the Potala Palace: the Dalai Lama is looking for a few good men.

I've already said this, but you appear to have missed it.  Archaeology proves nothing more than that some non-supernatural historical events as described in the Bible have actually happened.  The miracle of the loaves and fishes: no archaeological evidence exists for this.  The raising of Lazarus from the dead: no evidence.  The plague of Frogs in Exodus: no evidence.  The turning of water into wine: no evidence.  The resurrection: no evidence.  All these things did happen, but don't look for worldly proof of them, because you won't find any.

Sure there's plenty of ruins that can be mapped to locations mentioned in the Bible, and there is some evidence for the actual existence of some persons mentioned in the Bible.  Jesus seems to be entirely historical, as is David and some other kings of Israel and Judea.  Pontius Pilate, too.  But none of this proves that any supernatural thing that is reported in the Bible actually occurred.  You can believe it, as I do, but the only proof of it comes through the Spirit of God.  And since I have received through the Spirit the knowledge that these things are true, well then, I believe them.  

And here's a statement that makes absolutely no sense:

Believing in the Bible is not 100% faith in believing what cannot be seen or deduced.

I'm very sorry, but I cannot parse any firm meaning from this sentence.  Perhaps you can explain it?

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, theplains said:

The church can only exist because Jesus rose from the dead.  The fearful disciples became bold in preaching
the gospel only after they knew Jesus had been resurrected.  The Koran has so many stories which contradict
the Bible.

Thanks,
Jim

By the same token, Islam can only exist because Mohammed was a Prophet of God.  And for a similar reason: after Mohammed the armies of Islam had the courage to conquer all of North Africa and into Spain, and all of the near east and eastern Europe up to Vienna.  And this, by the way, was against the Christians, because all of North Africa and the remnants of the Roman Empire were all Christian, and this proves that Islam is superior to Christianity.  So what the Koran has so many stories which contradict the Bible?  The New Testament has so many stories (and teachings) which contradict the Old Testament!  I'll bet you eat unclean animals, even though the Bible and the Koran expressly forbid it, you heretic.

Jim, your arguments are pathetic.  By your logic, the LDS Church can only exist because Joseph Smith died as a martyr.  And after he died, the missionaries became bold in preaching because of Joseph's sealing of his testimony with his blood.  

[Maidservant]

This type of negative grammar actually meaning the positive is found in French speaking as well.  For example: [spoken in French accent] "The zebra, he has black and white stripes, no?"  "This chocolate mousse is the best you have ever eaten, no?"

[theplains]

On 27/04/2017 at 5:10 AM, Stargazer said:

By your logic, the LDS Church can only exist because Joseph Smith died as a martyr.  And after he died, the missionaries became bold in preaching because of Joseph's sealing of his testimony with his blood.  

The LDS Church can only exist if one believes in the First Vision account; that there was a need for a
restoration. Her teachings about Jesus and the nature of God are her fruits. Jesus is not the first spirit
child of Heavenly Mother and Father, who progressed into becoming a god when he reached some
pinnacle of intelligence (like Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual teaches).

Thanks,
Jim

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The LDS Church can only exist if one believes in the First Vision account; that there was a need for a
restoration. Her teachings about Jesus and the nature of God are her fruits. Jesus is not the first spirit
child of Heavenly Mother and Father, who progressed into becoming a god when he reached some
pinnacle of intelligence (like Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual teaches).

Thanks,
Jim

Considering the huge argument over the Filioque, your quibbles over the nature of God as revealed by a Prophet of God dwindle into unimportance.  And you think there was no need for a Restoration?

Which side of the issue over the Filioque do you come down on, by the way?  

[Johnnie Cake]

On 4/26/2017 at 3:24 PM, bluebell said:

These statements are demonstrably false though.

Statement 1-archaelogical and geographical evidence supports the bible as being the word of God or "true".

• No it doesn't. Archaeological and geographical evidence supports that the places mentioned in the bible actually existed, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the spiritual claims in the bible actually happened and the words are from God.  For example, there is archaeological and geographical evidence for the Troy.  That doesn't mean that the Illiad (the book which talks about Troy) is true or that Zeus exists.

Statement 2-no resurrection, no church.

• There are lots of churches that don't have any belief in the resurrection of Christ, yet, they still exist.  Islam exists, for example.  So does Buddhism and Hinduism.  They don't believe in the resurrection, yet there they are, happily existing.

There's got to be other reasons that you believe the bible is true because the ones you've given so far don't make a lot of sense.

Whoa...you go girl...

[Stargazer]

On 4/26/2017 at 2:24 PM, bluebell said:

These statements are demonstrably false though.

Statement 1-archaelogical and geographical evidence supports the bible as being the word of God or "true".

• No it doesn't. Archaeological and geographical evidence supports that the places mentioned in the bible actually existed, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the spiritual claims in the bible actually happened and the words are from God.  For example, there is archaeological and geographical evidence for the Troy.  That doesn't mean that the Illiad (the book which talks about Troy) is true or that Zeus exists.

Statement 2-no resurrection, no church.

• There are lots of churches that don't have any belief in the resurrection of Christ, yet, they still exist.  Islam exists, for example.  So does Buddhism and Hinduism.  They don't believe in the resurrection, yet there they are, happily existing.

There's got to be other reasons that you believe the bible is true because the ones you've given so far don't make a lot of sense.

Yep!  That's what I said about 12 hours after you did!

Except you said it more succinctly!  Kudos!

[theplains]

On 02/05/2017 at 9:28 PM, Stargazer said:

Considering the huge argument over the Filioque, your quibbles over the nature of God as revealed by a Prophet of God dwindle into unimportance.  And you think there was no need for a Restoration?

Which side of the issue over the Filioque do you come down on, by the way?  

Either Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents or people are preaching a false Christ.

I didn't understand your last question.

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

On 4/26/2017 at 3:22 PM, theplains said:

The Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents who had to progress into becoming
a God.  

At one point of his life Joseph Smith taught, "Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is
from everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Doctrine and Covenants 61:1).
"Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I AM, even Jesus Christ"
(D&C 39:1). "For the Lord is God, and beside him there is no Savior. From eternity to eternity, he is the same"
(D&C 76:1,4).  The Book of Mormon even calls Jesus the Eternal God (see title page and 2 Nephi 26:12). In the
Gospel Principles teacher’s manual, “eternal” is defined as meaning “everlasting, without beginning or end."

The Book of Mormon (in Mosiah 3:5) even says about Jesus: "The Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is
from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a
tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the
dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases".

The LDS Church apostatized from these teachings.

Jim

I say, no the Church did not apostatize. Just like the NT says Melchizedek became without mother and without Father - without beginning. This is because he inherited an everlasting priesthood. In his righteousness, Christ does change not.

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Either Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents or people are preaching a false Christ.

I wouldn't say he is the first spirit child of Heavenly Father. He is the only begotten Son out of the sons of God. He is the one who followed His Father's teachings, and became the only begotten of the Father. As He said, I do nothing of myself but what I have seen the Father do, and I do likewise. As my Father has taught me, that do I do. I believe His Father did the same. 

[churchistrue]

On 4/21/2017 at 8:44 AM, smac97 said:

From FAIR (emphases added) (footnotes omitted):

The real proof as to the antiquity of this grammatical form is here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Are there examples in the KJV of this not as rhetorical device? Edit: nvm I'm reading the Fair article now and seeing the examples. Thanks for link. 

Edited May 7, 2017 by churchistrue

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

 

I wrote:

Considering the huge argument over the Filioque, your quibbles over the nature of God as revealed by a Prophet of God dwindle into unimportance.  And you think there was no need for a Restoration?

Which side of the issue over the Filioque do you come down on, by the way? 

Your response:

Either Jesus is the first spirit child of Heavenly Parents or people are preaching a false Christ.

I didn't understand your last question.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, the first line of your response is non-responsive to my first line.  And I don't quite know what to make of the statement.  I know what you believe, and I know that you cannot possibly understand what you believe.  And I also know you're fine with it.  But in fact there is no false Christ.  There may be false understandings of who Christ is, but that doesn't make Christ false.

What, you don't know what the Filioque is?

Edited May 7, 2017 by Stargazer