NT Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

[pseudogratix]

Oh wait, what does the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible say?

Why doesn't the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible always agree with related passages in the Book of Mormon? @ http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProblems.shtml#judge

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I am not in the least bit offended, like I said I'm in construction. Now that I'm older I manage very large projects and get beat up daily by subcontractors, my skin is very thick, and to tell you the truth I really understand both sides of the coin. I wouldn

[Mighty Curelom]

Wade said (to Markk)

How it is that you missed all this, is not too difficult to guess. You obviously are not intent on, or capable of, having a reasonable and mutually respectful interfaith discussion. You aren't here to rationally engage other points of view in any meaningful way. Your efforts, instead, seem simply designed to preach and dispense your religious prejudices and negative propaganda.

Now that I understand this, I won't waste my time with your one-sided drivel, but will dismiss it as quickly as you have dismissed what I have said.

I just read through Markk's posts, and I found them to be very respectful. More respectful than some people on this board deserve, in my opinion. Wade's righteous indignation is completely misplaced and unjustified. Again, in my humble opinion.

If it is truly inspired, then I just don

[YH8]

Hi YH8

I don

[enummaelish]

Mark:

If it is truly inspired, then I just don

[Magyar]

Magyar hears sound of sizzling match head being extinguished in water, 'tsssss!'

The tactics of the Gospel's attackers never change. The guys who got so hacked off at Abraham probably used the same playbook as did the Pharisees and their modern-day theological successors, those pious folk who get so worked up against Joseph Smith and living prophets.

Abraham got in trouble too over his "anti-social" activities. Heck, he even had to leave the land of his nativity and resettle somewhere else. But of course, YH8's example of the Saviour's own controversy trumps that, and puts persecuted prophets in quite good company, I think.

[Magyar]

Sorry, Enuma, I needed to give you credit for that defense, although YH8 is a great apologist, too. That's what I get for going too fast through these boards.

[John Russell]

Markk,

I am unable to follow the strength of your position. You claim that your theory is the ONLY one that can account for everything in the formative years of the LDS Church, yet you appear to be unwilling to consider possible alternatives. You discount a divine source because (as nearly as I can tell) Joseph Smith fails to conform with the standard that you have established for a divinely-appointed man. Is this a fair assessment of your position? Let's work this backwards for a moment, and see what would make sense to you. Let's assume that the Church is indeed the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and that a prophet named Joseph Smith was the vehicle of that restoration. Let us, by extension, further assume that the Book of Mormon is indeed an ancient text delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith. Now, create the scenario that SHOULD occur, if you were God and restoring your gospel. How would Joseph Smith behave, and what would be the outcomes of all of his decisions with regard to the nascent Church? As a final step, compare your scenario with biblical prophets to validate your ideas. Can you do this? It would be helpful (it may require a different thread) for you to define what Joseph Smith should have been like to be considered a true prophet, in your opinion, and support it with comparisons to actual examples.

[John Russell]

Great post, Enu!

[wenglund]

Wade said (to Markk)

How it is that you missed all this, is not too difficult to guess. You obviously are not intent on, or capable of, having a reasonable and mutually respectful interfaith discussion. You aren't here to rationally engage other points of view in any meaningful way. Your efforts, instead, seem simply designed to preach and dispense your religious prejudices and negative propaganda.

Now that I understand this, I won't waste my time with your one-sided drivel, but will dismiss it as quickly as you have dismissed what I have said.

I just read through Markk's posts, and I found them to be very respectful. More respectful than some people on this board deserve, in my opinion. Wade's righteous indignation is completely misplaced and unjustified. Again, in my humble opinion.

You have yet to demonstrate even the least capacity for respectful interfaith dialogue, but seem only intent upon voicing your own religious prejudice. So, it is not suprising that you would disagree with my perceptions about Markk, and feign humility in the process.

That you, likewise, completely missed the point of post, also explains your not-so-humble disagreement.

But, I am sure Markk will be pleased to have you patting him on the back--that is, until he discovers that you are equally disdainful and bigotted towards his religious faith and belief in the Bible, as you are towards the restored gosple of Christ and the BofM.

With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Anyway, I have probably wasted my time in saying this to you since you have well demonstrated that it is pointless attempting a reasoned and intelligent discussion with you.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Markk]

Hi David,

The trouble that Jesus got into, and the trouble that JS got into is much different, unless JS is the standard, then you have a point. I would be careful in comparing the two, I get in trouble all the time, as I

[YH8]

Hi YH8,

Like I said I

[Markk]

Hi YH8

You said.."and have a hard time trusting anti-LDS versions of things when I know/believe said things to be different."

Your being dogmantic...how can you know those things to be different? Pretty lame argument isn't it.

Would it be right for me to say half of JS story is true and half is not? Thats just isn't a possibility as far as I'm concearned. I believe it was JFS that said something to the effect that if JS is wrong then its the biggest hoax ever. If the BOM is false then all is false. And remember we ar etalking in a theological context, not a personal context, so don't think I believe Mormons are bad people, I'm just saying the theology is not true, you can call that flawed, dogmatic, right or wrong, it really doesn't matter, it's just what I believe.

Chuck Swindol said once, if you take "a" truth and make it "the" truth, it becomes a lie. So when JS says a truth, given the whole context, that truth can be trumped by contradictory non-truths, making it a lie, I believe that.

And what is the officail version, tell me in your own words YH8?

Mark

John 1:12

[pseudogratix]

but that

[YH8]

Hi YH8

You said.."and have a hard time trusting anti-LDS versions of things when I know/believe said things to be different."

Your being dogmantic...how can you know those things to be different? Pretty lame argument isn't it.

Would it be right for me to say half of JS story is true and half is not? Thats just isn't a possibility as far as I'm concearned. I believe it was JFS that said something to the effect that if JS is wrong then its the biggest hoax ever. If the BOM is false then all is false. And remember we ar etalking in a theological context, not a personal context, so don't think I believe Mormons are bad people, I'm just saying the theology is not true, you can call that flawed, dogmatic, right or wrong, it really doesn't matter, it's just what I believe.

Chuck Swindol said once, if you take "a" truth and make it "the" truth, it becomes a lie. So when JS says a truth, given the whole context, that truth can be trumped by contradictory non-truths, making it a lie, I believe that.

And what is the officail version, tell me in your own words YH8?

Mark

John 1:12

Did you notice how I said "know/believe?" I tempered my statement.

Examples of what I believe are red herrings offered by antimos:

1) Adam-God

2) Blood Atonement

3) Joseph SMith was a scoundrel, etc.

4) The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from x, y, or z.

5) No way the Book of Mormon can be true

6) Temple ceremonies are only Masonic, etc.

7) No way Book of Abraham can be true

Mormons believe is works only salvation

9) etc.

Get the picture? Because you believe negative versions of all these issues, does not mean said versions are accurate.

I guess I'll bite and answer your question about the official LDS version of how the Book of Mormon came about. For some reason I'm thinking this will not be a fruitful discussion with you though. Here goes . . .

First of all, if you read the introductory pages to the current edition of the Book of Mormon, you'll get the official version. However, let me suffice to say that I believe that Joseph Smith received an ancient record (golden plates) from an angel (Moroni) and translated them by the gift and power of God (Urim and Thumim (sp?), seer stone, inspiriation, revelation). I have a hard time considering antimo versions of these events because I have a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon, Joseph SMith, the LDS Church, and most importantly, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His and our Father and God. Thus, I tend to take Joseph Smith and his supporters at their word. Given the nature of my experiences, I'm not very interested in being told how rotten Joseph SMith was, or how this, that, or the other he was. Or how this, that, or the other means that this, that, or the other isn't true. It doesn't fly with me. There are reasonable explanations for the controversies. Antimos seem to forget that there are controversies with all religion. We all have our reasons for belief and faith. I'll go with mine. However, you can have yours too. I'm ok with that. Are you? I believe that other belief systems are false, in the end, but I don't spend time on "their" message boards trying to dissuade them for their beliefs. It's called tolerance. Wait . . . Joseph Smith advocated tolerance, I guess that means you don't think tolerance is a good thing. That must be why you are here?

[Markk]

Hi YH8,

Because a person defends and debates their beliefs doesn

[1dc]

One problem with your thought is that there are 60,000 LDS young men and women out there knocking on doors trying to get people to believe that Christian have zero authority to act in Gods name, is that tolerance? LDS theology demand that the Christian church is lost, but a lot of members get offended when Christians refute LDS theology in defense of what they believe.

Correct teachings should recognize . .

1. Other Christians have contended similar to the LDS . . in fact there is a wide variety of beliefs among those professing faith in Christ.

"There is no regularly-constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor can there be, until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming I am seeking." - Roger Williams (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

2. LDS scripture confirms all good is from God . . (e.g., truths revealed from the Bible and by personal revelation).

http://scriptures.lds.org/moro/7/12#12

President George Albert Smith said:

[enummaelish]

Hello Mark:

LDS theology is anti Christian, but you don

[Dale]

Hi,

Mark believes he is a member of the true One Christian Church. Because Mormonism in his view is not technicaly true it's anti-Christian. If we can tell him he's wrong he can tell Book of Mormon believers they are wrong.Although Lutherans, Baptists ect are members of institutionally different churches they believe there's only one true Christian church. They see in unity of key orthodoxy there must be unity & in non-essential issues unity. So because he is united with his true Christianity it's his duty to try & get unsaved restoration believers saved from hell.

On the FAIR board there's an opportunity to have lively debates. Strong dissagreements exist about which religion to follow.

An issue that he brought up is denials his Christian groups have authority to act in God's name. Technically that is true. Technically also he denies LDS ministers have zero authority.

Mark,

While the point of #6 "Temple ceremonies are only Masonic,ect "can't be discussed in detail your point can atleast can be answered. While some LDS in speaking in LDS circles deny the relationship, others admit masonic influences. FAIR's links to Michael Griffith's website has his answer. & I recall it being that the law of Moses when compared to pagam practices had pagan influences on the form of the religious practices. I Michael Griffith & admit some Masonic influences myself. FAIR's concern is that temple ceremonies not be cited, or that issues LDS can't get into not be discussed. But issues they can get into can be discussed. Perhaps Barry Bickmores Restoring the Ancient Church, Joseph Smith & Early Christianity chapter 6 entitled The Temple gives you an idea of what LDS feel can or cannot be discussed. But I might be wrong but I agree with you partially in admitting possible influences.

I have books, DVD's,tracts ect on Mormonism. One of my favorite DVD's in my collection is The Mormon Puzzle film by the Southern Baptists. I atleast try & familiarize myself with basic concerns of Christians. The basic anti-Mormon film talking points have been refuted by FAIR & FARMS,ect. Some like Carl Mosser & Paul Owens wrote The New Mormon Challenge because they felt a need to get rid of bad outdated Christian apologetics. J.P. Holdings The Mormon Defenders, How Latter-day Saint Apologists MIsinterprets the Bible is another example of new christian updates. Mormonism Researched Ministry is putting up articles to counter FAIR's Mormonism 201 rebuttal to them because FAIR was making them look bad. I am not sure all LDS responses are in but I assume FAIR will not be silent indefinitely.

Here's my brief reply to the issues.

1.Brigham Young tought Adam God. Admit he made mistakes & there's no need to defend him. The old he got misinterpreted & misquoted has been refuted by historians.

2.Admit Blood Atonement as a mistake. Don't defend it.

3.I don't see Joseph Smith Jr. as a scoundrel myself. Martin Luther was an anti-semite & tought some polygamy. Why do you think he was a dishonest person?

4.I have seen the issue of plagiarism extensively refuted on both sides. I will continue to use the Book of Mormon because I don't see the examples as true plagiarism. The KJV Bible is God's book & he can allow it to be cited without being guilty plagiarizing from himself. I feel some examples of plagiarism are overstated. FAIR's paper by Kevin Christiansen entitled Does The Book of Mormon Contain Anacronistic language? gives examples.

5.LDS have a case for the Book of Mormon being ancient & true. Lately Brent Metcalfe & Dan Vogel of Signature Book's have been hanging out on the FAIR board. While I bought Mormon Apocrypha I don't see a need to reject my Echoes & Evidences of the Book of Mormon. Though I do ponder Book of Mormon historicity issues when they do come up. I thinkk there are legitimate evidences for the Book of Mormon. Perhaps in my old age I might agree with you. I might be wrong about anything Book of Mormon historicity included.

6.Admit possible influences of Masonry influencing the temple. Although others associated with FAIR feel me wrong.

7.FARM's volume Traditions About The Early LIfe of Abraham affirms Book of Abraham does have good things to say about the book. Kerry Shirts, Paul Osbourne, John Gee, Michael Rhodes have demonstated atleast similarities between Joseph's explanations & the facimilies. I know what non-Mormon Egyptologists say about the Book of Abraham. And I like Mormon experts a bit better. Paul Osbournes stuff does have some points you ought to consider. John Gee's stuff is still under review by me. I feel he needs to establishe the Alphabet & Grammars non-use in translation & fix a more sure date for the thing before I will endorse the missing papyrus idea. At this point I agree some critics issues are important,others are still under review by me.

8.LDS apologists as do Catholics deny Justification by faith alone was early Christian Doctrine. After seeing LDS apologists criticized for over drawing similarities between early Christian temple like practices & ideas of deification I noticed areas I thought ignored by critics of LDS theology. I have yet to see Barry Bickmore refuted on the proof texts from the early church that clearly mixed grace & works. If Catholic's are historic Christians then mixing grace & works does not make LDS non-Christian cultists. While the Catholics agree with you on the Trinity Martin Luther would not have agreed Catholics were saved. Either they have the same saving God as you or a different God. So basically LDS don't need to have the same God as others in order to be called Christian.

I don't see anything you said that offends me. I see genuine concerns & they can be discussed within message board limits. The reason why temple things can't be discussed is because people are upset about the ceremonies. People start bashing LDS sacred things & the conversations always turn bad. I also feel that rather than talking the ceremonies that other issues are more profitable. To me although I will debate the seven items you listed I prefer to focus, on God,man, salvation, scripture issues. I felt the items you listed were important & I found atleast some truth in what you said.

Sincerely,

Dale

[YH8]

1) Almost all have deep controversy, and not from so called antimos, but from those who witnessed and heard these men and teachings.

2) One problem with your thought is that there are 60,000 LDS young men and women out there knocking on doors trying to get people to believe that Christian have zero authority to act in Gods name, is that tolerance?

1) I keep forgetting that your sources are slamdunks.

2) Spare me. I guess you don't understand what tolerance is. BTW, do you think tolerance is a good thing? Remember, Joseph SMith advocated it. Although, I'm sure you'll probably start telling me how he didn't really advocate it. Part of what makes an antimo an antimo is trying to tell LDS what they really believe, etc.

BTW, have you ever heard of the "Avenger of Blood" in the Old Testament? I wonder if this has any bearing on the Blood Atonement controversy.

Also, are you going to tell us how God would work through a prophet and what said prophet would be like? Remember that challenge? It is hard to imagine how a true prphet wouldn't have any controversy associated with him. It is hard to imagine that Satan would just leave him alone.

[John Russell]

Markk,

Have you considered your criteria for the ideal prophet? It is obvious that you don't like Joseph Smith as a prophetic icon, but could you outline what Joseph Smith SHOULD have done in the circumstances that you list that it would take to convince you that he was a prophet?

[John Russell]

Markk said:

One problem with your thought is that there are 60,000 LDS young men and women out there knocking on doors trying to get people to believe that Christian have zero authority to act in Gods name, is that tolerance? LDS theology demand that the Christian church is lost, but a lot of members get offended when Christians refute LDS theology in defense of what they believe. So when you say you don

[juliann]

One problem with your thought is that there are 60,000 LDS young men and women out there knocking on doors trying to get people to believe that Christian have zero authority to act in Gods name, is that tolerance?

Now you are making things up. It should worry you when you have to start exaggerating to maintain your position. A position of any merit should stand without that kind of behavior.

Mark 9:38

[wenglund]

Had Wade,

That

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

That was interesting. Ok I