FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is the Book of Mormon Really True





pdwatermelon
I want to know how many people have actually read the book of mormon. And also what people think of it.
raman
I saw the South Park episode about it and nope it seems pretty fake to me.
_bloodstain
raman wrote:
I saw the South Park episode about it and nope it seems pretty fake to me.


LMAO! I don't really think you should base your opinions off South Park.

I have read parts of the book of Mormon and had pleanty of Mormons at my house, I'm kind of 'iffy' on the whole thing actually. Shove it in my face with hard evidence and I'll believe it. Some people can have faith without knowing for sure, I don't.
acamas
I have heard about it and where I live their are always people giving you cards about them and stuff. I agree i think it is abit 'iffy!
helk
I own a book of mormon, and i'm not religous or anything.
I accepted it along with an introduction by two interesting people.

I think it's more or less like the Buddhist Tripitaka or the Hindu Vedas. I think they are all extrememly instructional on maintaining stability on a personal and global level. It requires of a person very certain perspectives and degrees of mental ability to understand (that is, to successfully interpret and maintain belief in) any one doctrine.

So whether fiction or not, i still respect it.
therestofus
Im Mormon, im not really too religious, but its just a religion, were not like a cult or anything...whether or not The Book of Mormon is true, well it just depends on what you believe and what you dont believe. Its just like if you asked someone if The Bible is true, its all on what you believe.
torchkeeper
oooh Book of Mormon/s..

we've studied that in world history at school. they're the ones who have like big and gorgeous churches right? So yeah, they're rich. lol, but anyway.. i don't really believe it because I find the Holy Bible more accurate and it is what most religions use. And I don't really think I'll become a saint or someone holy if I become a good Mormon... nah, i just don't really dig it ya know? Oh and by the way, I'm a Protestant. A Methodist to be really exact. Very Happy
gonzo
"Truth? What is truth?"
paul_indo
Quote:
Holy Bible more accurate and it is what most religions use.


Actualy I think only the Christians use it.

The Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc have their own holy books.
jazrt
here is a link to the official site.

Of "The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints".
http://www.lds.org/

Nickname the Mormons.

http://www.mormon.org/

And this will answer a few questions you may have.
Now as to anyone telling you it is true or not. You have to find out for yourself. And the only one that can tell you whether it's true or not would be God himself. wether you believe in God or not.
And if you don't believe in God and you got an answer anyway. Then what would that mean.

the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints members use the Bible and the book of Mormon together. As the Bible is a record of the Jews dealings with God. And the book of Mormon is a record of the ancient American people dealing with God. Now if God is the God of the whole world. Then would he teach his people one thing on one side of the world and something completely different on the other.
So therefore the Bible and the book of Mormon used together can help to gain a better understanding. And God has also dealt with other people in other parts the world and and they have records also of God's dealings with them.
and when they are brought forward then they should also strengthen what the Bible says and any other records that are written by those that have had dealings with God.
mares
that south park episode is realy a good one. if mormons are exist they have to be funny people.
gonzo
jazrt wrote:
And this will answer a few questions you may have

mormon dude wrote:

The question of the nature of God is absolutely fundamental to any theology. Joseph Smith preached that “if you were to see [God] today, you would see him like a man in form,” and that “the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.” (3) On the other hand, mainstream Christians generally accept definitions such as that of the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, where God was said to be “eternal, immense, incomprehensible…who, being a unique spiritual substance by nature, absolutely simple and unchangeable, must be declared distinct from the world in fact and by essence.” (5) The implications of this difference in doctrine are enormous. For instance, if the Father and Son both have their own anthropomorphic bodies, it doesn’t make any sense to postulate that they are “one Being,” as mainstream Christians do. Also, it doesn’t make any sense to speak of God creating matter from nothing, if God Himself has a material nature. I’m going to talk more about both of these issues later, but from the outset I wanted to point out the importance of differences in assumptions about the nature of God.


catholic scholar wrote:
I thank Dr. Bickmore for straightforwardly outlining the profound, irreconcilable differences between the Mormon and biblical, Christian conceptions of God. The Bible (verses below: KJV) teaches that God the Father: the YHWH / Jehovah / Elohim / Adonai of the Old Terstament, is an invisible Spirit:

JOHN 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time . . .

JOHN 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

JOHN 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

1 TIMOTHY 1:17 . . . the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, . . .

1 TIMOTHY 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: . . .

1 JOHN 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time . . .

Jesus said:

JOHN 4:24 God {is} a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship {him} in spirit and in truth.

After His Resurrection, He defined the relationship of a spirit to matter:

LUKE 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

The inescapable logical conclusion, therefore, from the mouth of our Lord Jesus, is that a spirit has not flesh and bones. God the Father is a spirit; ergo: God the Father has no flesh and bones, as Joseph Smith says He does. Now, whom are we to believe?: Joseph Smith, with his evolving "man-god" of flesh and bones, or the God-Man Jesus Christ, who taught that the Father was a non-material spirit?



The book of mormon is filled with MANY 'interesting' claims which contradict Jesus' own words. That's a little odd for a book from people who claim to be Christian, isn't it?



jazrt wrote:
And the book of Mormon is a record of the ancient American people dealing with God


No, actually its their account of Jesus and native Americans which diametrically opposes Jesus' assertion that he would not return again until the end of time. Time seems to be continuing.


catholic answers wrote:


Let’s take a closer look at the text the missionaries offer. At first glance the Book of Mormon appears to be biblical in heft and style. It’s couched in tedious "King James" English, and it features color renderings of Mormon scenes made to look like Bible illustrations.

The introduction tells you that the "Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel." There it is again—the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." Naturally, you ask yourself just what that phrase means.

According to the Mormon church, authentic Christianity can’t be found in any of the so-called Christian churches—only, of course, in the Mormon church.

Mormons teach that, after Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles taught the true doctrines of Christ and administered his sacred ordinances (roughly the equivalent of Catholic sacraments). After the death of the apostles, their successors continued the work of the gospel, but with rapidly declining success. Within a few generations, the great apostasy foretold in the Bible had destroyed Christ’s Church (contrary to Jesus’ own promise in Matthew 16:1Cool.

The Mormon church asserts that the Church Christ founded became increasingly corrupted by pagan ideas introduced by nefarious members. (Sound familiar?) Over a period of years, the Church lost all relationship with the Church Christ established. Consequently, the keys of authority of the holy priesthood were withdrawn from the earth, and no man any longer had authorization to act in God’s name.

From that time onward there were no valid baptisms, no laying on of hands for the receipt of the Holy Ghost, no blessings of any kind, and no administration of sacred ordinances. Confusions and heretical doctrines increased and led to the plethora of Christian sects seen today.

Mormons claim that to restore the true Church and true gospel to the earth, in 1820 God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near his home. They told him that all professing Christians on the face of the earth were abominable and corrupt and that the true Church, having died out completely shortly after it began, was to be restored by Smith.

Mormons run into no small difficulty in reconciling the great apostasy theory with Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

How could it be that Christ, who should have known better, would promise that his Church wouldn’t be overcome if he knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was he mistaken? No. Did he miscalculate things? No, again. Christ’s divinity precluded such things.

What are we left with then? Could it be that Mormons are mistaken in their interpretation of such a crucial passage? This is the only tenable conclusion. If there were no great apostasy, then there could have been no need for a restoration of religious authority on the earth. There would be no "restored gospel," and the entire premise of the Mormon church would be undercut.


The fact is that the only church with an unbroken historical line to apostolic days is the Catholic Church. Even many Protestants acknowledge this, though they argue that there was a need for the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.

As non-Catholic historians admit, it can be demonstrated easily that early Church writers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, had no conception of Mormon doctrine, and they knew nothing of a "great apostasy."

Nowhere in their writings can one find references to Christians embracing any of the peculiarly Mormon doctrines, such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, and temple ceremonies. If the Church of the apostolic age was the prototype of today’s Mormon church, it must have had all these beliefs and practices. But why is there no evidence of them in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?


..

Christian concept of God versus Mormonism
http://web.archive.org/web/20030228212422/www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0100a.html

Are mormons really Christian?
http://web.archive.org/web/20030707125242/members.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num23.htm?mtbrand=AOL_US

..


catholic answers wrote:
The Book of Mormon is Anti-Mormon


These heterodox teachings, and many others like them, appear nowhere in the Book of Mormon. In fact, pivotal Mormon doctrines are flatly refuted by the Book of Mormon.

For instance, the most pointed refutation of the Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are actually three separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31: "Now Zeezrom said: ‘Is there more than one God?’ and [Amulek] answered, ‘No.’ And Zeezrom said unto him again, ‘How knowest thou these things?’ And he said: ‘An angel hath made them known unto me.’"



The Bottom Line


The Book of Mormon fails on three main counts. First, it utterly lacks historical or archaeological support, and there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence that refutes it. Second, the Book of Mormon contains none of the key Mormon doctrines. This is important to note because the Latter-Day Saints make such a ballyhoo about it containing the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." (It would be more accurate to say it contains almost none of their "everlasting gospel" at all.) Third, the Book of Mormon abounds in textual errors, factual errors, and outright plagiarisms from other works.

If you’re asked by Mormon missionaries to point out examples of such errors, here are two you can use.

We read that Jesus "shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is in the land of our forefathers" (Alma 7:10). But Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem (Matt. 2:1).

If you mention this to a Mormon missionary, he might say Jerusalem and Bethlehem are only a few miles apart and that Alma could have been referring to the general area around Jerusalem. But Bethany is even closer to Jerusalem than is Bethlehem, yet the Gospels make frequent reference to Bethany as a separate town.

Another problem: Scientists have demonstrated that honey bees were first brought to the New World by Spanish explorers in the fifteenth century, but the Book of Mormon, in Ether 2:3, claims they were introduced around 2000 B.C.

The problem was that Joseph Smith wasn’t a naturalist; he didn’t know anything about bees and where and when they might be found. He saw bees in America and threw them in the Book of Mormon as a little local color. He didn’t realize he’d get stung by them.

Tell the Mormon missionaries: "Look, it is foolish to pray about things you know are not God’s will. It would be wrong of me to pray about whether adultery is right, when the Bible clearly says it is not. Similarly, it would be wrong of me to pray about the Book of Mormon when one can so easily demonstrate that it is not the word of God."
helk
Does anybody think religions have a life cycle?
Has the mormon religion evolved or changed significantly since it's inception?
ccarter24
Many people will bash on the Book of Mormon without really knowing what it is or even reading it. They hear the word "Mormon" and think "crazy religious idiots". To find out if it's true or not you have to investigaste it yourself. Reading and praying are the only way to go about it. You shouldn't trust solely upon another man's understanding of the Book of Mormon, or the Bible for that matter. Of course Cathloic guy is going to say the Catholic church is true, and of course Baptist guy will say Baptists are right, and Mormon guy is going to say the Mormons are right. It's confusing really. But you have to investigate it yourself. It's really the only way.
Soulfire
I don't really believe in the book of Mormon (obviously I am not Mormon). Mormonism is relatively new compared to the 2000+ years that Christianity has been in existence, I believe the Church was founded in the 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong). I really don't think that you can just add something like that.
Dj_Dan
Hey, I know this topic is dating a bit now.. but am just browsing the forums for the first time. I am a 'mormon' and have been my whole life. In context of what the Bible actually can be defined as.... the Book of Mormon is no different at all.

I put it this way:
Bible is a record of God's dealings with the people living in and around what we now call the 'Middle East' (namely Israel). It contains the writings of many 'prophets' who were inspired to write the word of God for the people of that time, but also for us today. It stands as a testament of God and his existence.
The Book of Mormon is exactly the same thing... only that it 's writers lived on and around Meso-America. They once lived in Jerusalem (and that's where the first writings were written). The people now journeyed to Meso-America and continued to pass down the records through generation to generation. It is written by many 'prophets' who were inspired by God up until 425 AD. It also stands as a testament of God and his existence. Two witnesses are better than one!

If you believe the Bible, you really ought to believe the Book of Mormon. Both come from the same source.... God.
NatetheGreat
Well, it's not like I've read it or anything, but the reason I've heard for calling you mormens a "cult" is the fact that you take someone else (Mr. Morman) above the Bible. You can say that's not true all you want, but I'm pretty sure I believe in my church's believes, and that they are based on the Bible, and therefore, for me, if your "Book of Mormen" controdicts my believes, it is controdicting the Bible. And I don't really care to have a debate from the Bible on everyone of my believes... Confused

In other words, I don't really think it's a debaitable subject. Someone has to believe in all the Morman's believes before they can even think of eccepting the Book of Morman.
Dj_Dan
We don't consider the Book of Mormon above the Bible. We use them both. Both are really the same thing. Let's say just for instance, there are a people living in Meso-America, a people that want to know God. Let's say he communes with them through a prophet, just like in Israel. If God commanded theses prophets to write the words he spoke and keep those records.... and later we were to find them and read them... would we reject them because we already have the words that he spoke to prophets in Israel? In other words... would we reject more of his words simply because we already have some?

I don't think we would... and i certainly don't think we should. We already have the Bible... but then the records of these other prophets from Meso-America (who did actually exist) were found and translated. As a christian myself.. i didn't reject these writings also simply because i already had the bible. The Bible and these other records (now called the book of mormon) are to be used together. They are BOTH God's word. Why reject one simply because you have the other?

And for those who reject the book of mormon without even reading it.... I ask you this: how do you know the Bible is true? Did you find out for yourself or did someone just tell you so and you accepted it? If you hadn't ever read it.... how would you know if it was true or not?

Read the book of mormon! Test it and find out for yourself. I have done so. I read it and i prayed about it. I know it is God's word.... and so can you.
dark_lard
First of all lets get back on topic. Forget about anying but the things that are stated as facts in the book of mormon. Compare those to historical facts, they aren't accurate. Also where are the original manuscripts? The guy that put together the book of morman was a convicted con man. He claimed to find the rosetta stone and then translated these documents. So the things that the book of mormon are based on aren't even available to anyone for verification. There are so many things wrong with the mormon fraud it's not even funny just look some up on the internet.
Dj_Dan
dark_lard: if you want to get back on topic, I suppose you will need to know what the topic is... pdwatermelon
"I want to know how many people have actually read the book of mormon. And also what people think of it." That being the topic... i think i'm covering it pretty closely.
As for your topic... firstly...
1. what historical facts are you talking about?
2. Joseph Smith was a convicted con man? (????????) btw. need i point out to you that Moses was a murderer?! (according to the Bible)
oh... and as for the original manuscripts... an angel from God took them from Joseph after he had finished translating them. God wanted the book of mormon to be believed through faith... not "evidence". One last thing: it is very easy to find anti-mormon websites, but that's hardly the place for a sincere enquirer to find truth. It's like a muslim wanting to learn about Christianity, and searching through muslim anti-Christian websites in hope to find it. Need i tell you how many contradictions and faults there are in the bible? ...the muslim websites tell you the answer.
NatetheGreat
Dj_Dan wrote:
One last thing: it is very easy to find anti-mormon websites, but that's hardly the place for a sincere enquirer to find truth. It's like a muslim wanting to learn about Christianity, and searching through muslim anti-Christian websites in hope to find it. Need i tell you how many contradictions and faults there are in the bible? ...the muslim websites tell you the answer.


*remembers all the anti-SDA/EGWhite websites and shudders*

Yeah, when a website is put up for the express purpose of putting someone down, I don't think their a creditable source... Razz (although I wouldn't think it a bad idea to research the historical facts in the book of mormon as apposed to recorded history... Razz )

And I wasn't saying we should reject the book of Mormon because we already have the Bible, I was saying that the only way I'm going to accept it is if it's in complete harmony with the Bible.
JoeFriday
Dj_Dan wrote:
1. what historical facts are you talking about?
2. Joseph Smith was a convicted con man? (????????) btw. need i point out to you that Moses was a murderer?! (according to the Bible)
oh... and as for the original manuscripts... an angel from God took them from Joseph after he had finished translating them. God wanted the book of mormon to be believed through faith... not "evidence". One last thing: it is very easy to find anti-mormon websites, but that's hardly the place for a sincere enquirer to find truth. It's like a muslim wanting to learn about Christianity, and searching through muslim anti-Christian websites in hope to find it. Need i tell you how many contradictions and faults there are in the bible? ...the muslim websites tell you the answer.


what does Moses have to do with anything here? and being a murderer actually has very little to do with one's credibility.. but being a con-man pretty much means you shouldn't believe someone when he says "God is giving me all sorts of great information that you absolutely can't verify.. but take my word for it, and give me all your money.. oh, and I think I'll take these 23 women to be my wives"

excuse the rest of us for being a bit skeptical.. especially since the Mormons have a rather colorful history involving extortion, rioting, mobs burning down newspaper buildings, killing women and children, etc
Josso
raman wrote:
I saw the South Park episode about it and nope it seems pretty fake to me.


Lol, to be honest as soon as I saw this thread I thought of the Trey Parker and Matt Stone film Orgazmo... made me laugh.
JoeFriday
same for me, actually.. I watched that movie again just a few days ago Smile
S3nd K3ys
_bloodstain wrote:
raman wrote:
I saw the South Park episode about it and nope it seems pretty fake to me.


LMAO! I don't really think you should base your opinions off South Park.


Actually, they have hit a lot of issues straight on, and been correct about much of it. Wink
{name here}
paul_indo wrote:
Quote:
Holy Bible more accurate and it is what most religions use.


Actualy I think only the Christians use it.

The Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc have their own holy books.

The Jews use the Holy Bible also. The difference is that the New Testament is removed along with a few books. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have similar texts(thought the Koran has more differences to the Jewish and Christian Bibles, they do have people from the other two bibles).
Josso
Quote:
Actually, they have hit a lot of issues straight on, and been correct about much of it.


Laughing Damn right, it's done in quite a clever way but then laced over with quite crude comedy.
Related topics
Your favourite book (official)
Want to know if LOVE is real?
"No True Glory" by Bing West
Another religions
the book already a disappointment but the movie damp squib
Animal Farm
Heaven is the final station!!! Sure?
AOL not accepting emails
Have you ever have a god's miracle in your life ?
For Religionists: Which Holy Book Do You Subscribe To?
Love stories
Wikipedia
Da Vinci Code
Who knows about the bible
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.