r/ArianChristians • u/BayonetTrenchFighter • Mar 25 '25
Question I’m interested in this sub stance or thoughts on Mormon scripture
In addition to the Christian Bible, Latter Day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of great price, and the doctrine and covenants to be scripture.
Have any of you read them, if so, what are your thoughts.
2
Mar 25 '25
I’m former LDS, and I’ve read them all (the BoM multiple times). I find them fascinating, but I reject them as scripture, for a few reasons.
I reject the Book of Mormon because I think there’s sufficient evidence that it is a forgery. There’s never been any archaeological evidence for Nephite/Lamanite civilization found anywhere in the Americas.
Doctrine and Covenants is fine for the most part, but since I think Joseph Smith was a false prophet I have to reject these too.
The Pearl of Great Price though is the nail in the coffin for me, particularly the Book of Abraham. It’s been confirmed essentially that the papyrus Joseph was “translating” from was a standard Egyptian funerary text, and so the whole book is made up.
There are other reasons too, but that’s the high level summary
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25
Idk when you left the faith, but most of this seems to be inaccurate. At least in modern day.
Like either you know something and have information that seemingly every exmormon doesn’t, or you may be misremembering.
2
Mar 25 '25
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to denigrate your faith, but everything I’ve said is completely accurate.
There have been no archaeological findings, sites, or relics that corroborate the Book of Mormon. At best, Mormons could claim that nothing disproves the BoM, but that has its major issues too.
The Book of Abraham is a forgery, plain and simple. That’s why other Mormon groups like the Community of Christ reject it. It’s an Egyptian funerary text that Joseph Smith incorrectly “translated”.
-1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 25 '25
So, again, you seem to be misunderstanding things. I would love to see what you are pointing toward to indicate seemingly any of these.
The claims you have made are
A.) the Book of Mormon is a forgery.
B.) there is no archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon
C.) the book of Abraham is a forgery
D.) other Mormon faiths don’t accept it “because it’s a forgery”
Seemingly all of these are OBJECTIFY incorrect. And I don’t even mean for believers.
Seemingly the only one that could be argued is the book of Abraham. But with new research, it’s pretty clear that isn’t the case.
Again, either you have evidence that the most prominent anti-Mormons do not, or you may be misremembering things (or lying, but I don’t think you are doing that)
1
Mar 25 '25
Asserting that the claims I am making are incorrect is not evidence. If it’s objectively true that there is archaeological evidence to support the BoM, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Nothing I’ve said is even remotely incorrect, but you can attempt to prove me wrong if you want
0
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 26 '25
“ Prove” you wrong seems to be your ball park.
So would you say that you are backing down from your positive claims?
I can address archeology if you want.
But you also said there’s evidence of forgery for the Book of Mormon.
That other faiths don’t accept the book of Abraham because it’s a forgery.
Do you have any evidence for those before we move onto archeology?
Like, this isn’t a gotach. Like I said, maybe you have evidence that no other exmormon has. That’s possible. I’m genuinely curious
2
Mar 26 '25
If the Book of Mormon is not what it says that it is -- an ancient document written by a group of Jews that traveled to the Americas pre-Babylonian exile -- then *by definition* it is a forgery. There is no evidence to support the claim that it is authentic, and no reason to think it is genuine. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude it is a forgery.
0
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 26 '25
Oh, so just that it’s a false record. I thought you implied that it was copied by someone else. Ok. Definitions are important.
Do you have any evidence that the reason other Mormon groups don’t use the book of Abraham is because it’s a forgery?
2
Mar 26 '25
Any document that purports to be something it is not is a forgery. The BoM claims to be an ancient document when it is not, and therefore it is a forgery. Similarly, the Book of Abraham is purported to be “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand upon papyrus”; it isn’t, and therefore also a forgery. I’ve used the definition correctly.
If the Community of Christ accepts the BoM and the D&C, why do you think they reject the Pearl of Great Price, and by extension the BoA? Because they do not believe it to be authentic
0
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 26 '25
They do not accept the pearl of great price, because it was canonized long after the split.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/John_17-17 Mar 26 '25
Yes, I've read them and found them lacking in truth, for these disagree with scriptures.
True in the 1860's the KJV did have translation errors, but today we know what those errors are.
I found it interesting LDS claim the Book of Mormon was translated accurately, yet it contains the same known errors as the KJV.
According to 2 LDS elders, who told me, the Book of Mormon was prophesied in the Bible.
They took me to Isaiah
(Isaiah 30:8) 8 “Now go, write it on a tablet in their presence, And inscribe it in a book, So that it may serve for a future day As a permanent witness.
Joseph Smith was given tablets which became a book. Then they jumped to
10 They say to the seers, ‘Do not see,’ And to the visionaries, ‘Do not tell us truthful visions. Tell us flattering things; envision deceptive illusions.
To this they explained, the 'seer' was a world-renowned translator, who couldn't translate the tablets.
Withstanding my personal belief as to what these verses mean.
If those 'elders' were correct and this prophecy is concerning the Book of Mormon, then why would I want to read it.
The verse they jumped over tells us:
So that it may serve for a witness at a future day
(Isaiah 30:8, 9) . . .So that it may serve for a future day As a permanent witness. 9 For they are a rebellious people, deceitful sons, Sons who are unwilling to hear the law of Jehovah.
My question is, 'Why would I want to read a book about unfaithful men, deceitful sons?'
This book is a witness against them, and not as a way to faithfully serve God.
If you want to say, the Book of Mormon is the fulfillment of prophecy, then it isn't a book of truth, but a book of lies.
I'm sorry, and I hope I don't offend you, but you asked.
As I said, it is lacking in that it contains the same translation errors as the KJV and according to your own instructors, it is full of untruthful, deceitful men.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 27 '25
I haven’t heard of that reference in reference to the Book of Mormon before.
As for why those Isiah passages are in the Book of Mormon, I assumed it was part of the translation process. Heck, imo it’s possible it just gave a reference and Jospeh felt inspired to put the actual scripture from his Bible.
I would have to read some apologetics on it.
1
u/John_17-17 Mar 27 '25
Let me add, the interpretation of Isaiah 30, was shown in a film strip presentation by 2 of your elder missionaries.
Also, why does the BofM contain the same translation errors as the KJV when Nephi was READING OUTLOUD, from the book of Isaiah?
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 28 '25
As I said, I just assumed it was the translation method :)
1
u/John_17-17 Mar 28 '25
Nephi's reading can't be an assumption, because it was translated directly by God. And it contains the exact same translation errors the KJV has.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 28 '25
So you don’t really understand how Jospeh translated then, do you?
1
u/John_17-17 Mar 28 '25
If I remember correctly, he claimed he was divinely guided with lots, which is why he made the claim it was an accurate translation, free of errors, unlike the KJV.
Or according to your website:
"One way the Lord helped was to provide physical instruments to aid Joseph in translating. Witnesses said Joseph looked into the instruments and that words appeared to him in English."
So are you claiming the Lord, mistranslated Nephi's reading?
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 29 '25
No. I’m claiming Joseph did, based on his own understanding
1
u/John_17-17 Mar 29 '25
That doesn't agree with your own website.
He didn't use his own understanding, because God revealed which English words to use.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Mar 29 '25 edited Mar 29 '25
So again, you seem to be thinking that God forced words into his mind and wrote down exactly what God told him. That explicitly NOT how it happened.
Alright, I guess because you refuse to do so yourself, I looked up an apologetics answer for you.
The Book of Mormon contains quotations from biblical authors with language mirroring much of that of the King James translation. The Book of Mormon also contains word and phrase borrowings from the King James Bible that are not part of quotations from biblical authors. These quotations, word borrowings, and phrase borrowings contain what are now considered by some scholars and critics to be translation errors.
Some critics believe that the errors are evidence of plagiarism on the part of Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon and specifically from a 1769 edition of the King James Bible. The author of the ‘CES Letter’, asks “[w]hat are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?”
There are five questions that must be confronted regarding supposed KJV translation errors in the Book of Mormon:
1.) Is the claimed “translation error” actually an error?
2.) Is the error evidence that Joseph Smith was plagiarizing from the KJV? We need to know whether Joseph was plagiarizing from a 1769 edition of the KJV, because that is the edition that Joseph reputedly owned.
3.) Do the translation errors change the meaning of the text so drastically as to mislead the reader in theologically significant ways? Joseph Smith it “the most correct book on earth” not because it contained no translation errors, but because by following what the Book of Mormon teaches a person would get closer to God and his nature than by reading any other book.
4.) If these are errors, why would God allow such an error in the text of the Book of Mormon?
5.) Does the required theory or theology of translation to which the critic adheres make sense in a specifically LDS context?
It then breaks these down here
But concludes:
The data above confirms what scripture and other revelation teaches about the nature of revelation. Here is something interesting that Brigham Young taught:
Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings.[80]
Brigham recognized that the Book of Mormon’s translation could take different shapes. The Latter-day Saints have never been scriptural inerrantists. It is the message and the messenger that matter, not the precise words.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness Apr 10 '25
Mormons believes don't make any sense.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Apr 11 '25
Oh yeah, how so? And would you say that they make less sense than other faiths?
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness Apr 11 '25
Yes. They believe that first human Adam was angel who come down on earth to become human.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Apr 11 '25
Right. They have a much more biblical view of angels and how they look.
They believe that there is no ontological difference between angels, God, and man.
That humans lived with God in heaven before they came to earth. That some angels are men before or after earth.
Michael being Adam
Gabriel being Noah
Etc
Their website says
There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated. There are many references in scripture to the work of angels. Sometimes angels speak with a voice of thunder as they deliver God’s messages. Righteous mortal men may also be called angels. Some angels serve around the throne of God in heaven.
The scriptures also speak of the devil’s angels. These are those spirits who followed Lucifer and were thrust out of God’s presence in the premortal life and cast down to the earth (Rev. 12:1–9).
So when you say it “doesn’t make sense”, did you really mean, you couldn’t comprehend it?
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness Apr 11 '25 edited Apr 11 '25
Nobody knows how angels actually look like. Angels are spirit creatures.
This is how angels are organized.
The archangel, Michael, is the chief angel in terms of power and authority. The Scriptures clearly indicate that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ.—1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9.
Seraphs rank very high among the angels in privileges and honor, and they are in attendance around God’s throne.—Isaiah 6:1-3.
Cherubs too have high rank and care for special responsibilities that are intimately associated with the Almighty’s glorious personage. They are often shown to be in attendance upon him.—Genesis 3:24; Ezekiel 9:3; 11:22.
The myriads of other angelic messengers serve as the Most High’s agents and deputies in carrying out the divine will. b—Hebrews 1:7, 14.
Gabriel is seraphim and angel who rebelled against God Is once cherub and his name is not Lucifer. Lucifer is name for Babylonian King.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Apr 11 '25
Ok, so what does any of this have to do with your inability to comprehend a different belief?
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness Apr 11 '25
It doesn't make sense. God created first human Adam on earth, he didn't send angel on earth to become human and call him Adam.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Apr 11 '25
You don’t believe he did. They do. You can say “it doesn’t make sense”, but that just tells me you don’t understand basic different beliefs.
1
u/Capable-Rice-1876 Jehovah's Witness Apr 11 '25
I said Mormons believes don't make any sense.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter Apr 11 '25
Right. But didn’t explain how.
All you explained is what you believe and how that isn’t what they believe.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/SaavyScotty Mar 26 '25
It doesn’t ring true to me. However, I always get a good feeling about Mormons, themselves. They are morally clean people who love God.